Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just The Facts: Financial Facts on NATO and the U.S.

News

Just The Facts: Financial Facts on NATO and the U.S.

Different currencies.

Getty Images, bernardbodo

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

In early March, President Donald Trump once again called into question a fundamental principle of the NATO security alliance: that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all nations.


In a bill signing meeting in the Oval Office in February, President Trump said he would reconsider the U.S. commitment to the security pact if members in the 32-nation alliance do not increase defense spending as he has repeatedly demanded.

“Well, I think it’s common sense,” Trump said. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”

Those supporting the United States’ commitment to NATO argue that the defense of democracy in Europe is vital to the security of the United States and that the U.S. role in NATO deters Russia from pursuing aggressive and illegal actions.

However, many in the Trump Administration argue that the financial burden is too great and that membership could potentially draw the U.S. into a conflict that is not aligned with our interests. Additionally, Trump has suggested that NATO expansion and activities actually escalate tensions.

This is a clear departure from the United States’ commitment to NATO, which has existed since its founding in 1949.

In light of the debate about NATO, The Fulcrum presents:

Just The Facts: Financial Facts about NATO and the United States

What percent of NATO's budget does the U.S. pay?

The United States is the largest contributor to NATO's defense spending, accounting for approximately 16% of the total expenditure as of 2024.

How does this 16% contribution by the United States compare to the size of the U.S. economy versus Europe’s?

The 16% U.S. contribution to NATO’s direct budget is modest compared to the relative size of the U.S. economy versus Europe's.

  • U.S. GDP (2024): approximately $29 trillion, representing about 25% of the global GDP.
  • European Union GDP (2024): roughly $19 trillion, representing around 15-16% of the global GDP.

Thus, the United States contributes about 16% of NATO’s budget, despite having an economy that is approximately 55% larger than the EU's.

What is the NATO agreement on member countries' defense expenditures?

In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending, helping ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. Additionally, NATO members agreed that at least 20% of their annual defense expenditures should be dedicated to major new equipment, including associated research and development. This guideline is intended to ensure the modernization and effectiveness of their armed forces.

In 2024, did the United States pay more to NATO as a percentage of its GDP than any other nation?

The exact amount each country paid to NATO could not be found. However, in 2024, the United States paid 3.38% of its GDP to on total defense, Poland paid 4.12% and Estonia paid 3.4% of their GDP on total defense, but this does not directly related to the percentage spent just on NATO

In 2024, what % of their GDP did France, England, and Germany pay?

Germany paid 2.12%, France paid 2.06%, and England paid 2.33%.

Have NATO countries agreed to increase their share of funding?

Yes, NATO countries have recently agreed to increase their defense spending commitments.

NATO members have made significant strides in meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target, and in 2024, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that a record 23 of the 32 member states were meeting the defense spending target of 2% of their GDP. Ongoing discussions aim to further increase these commitments in response to current security challenges. However, consensus on higher targets, such as 3.5% or 5% of GDP, has yet to be reached, with debates continuing on the feasibility and definition of defense expenditures.

To meet these higher targets without imposing undue financial strain, NATO leaders are considering redefining what constitutes defense spending.

Has the United States directly supported Europe through NATO in conflicts in the last 30 years?

Yes, the United States has supported European countries in conflicts through NATO over the last 30 years. Some notable examples include:

  • Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1995): The U.S. led air strikes in Operation Deliberate Force and contributed significantly to peace enforcement through IFOR and SFOR missions.
  • Kosovo Conflict (1999): The U.S. played a significant role in NATO's intervention during the Kosovo War, conducting airstrikes to halt ethnic violence and ensure stability.
  • Libya (2011): Provided crucial support in the form of aerial reconnaissance, refueling capabilities, logistical assistance, and strategic command.
  • Ukraine Crisis (2014-Present): The U.S. has bolstered NATO's Eastern Flank by deploying troops and equipment to support European allies in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Did Europe support the U.S. in Afghanistan after 9/11?

Yes. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 (collective defense clause) for the first time in its history, declaring an attack against one ally as an attack against all. This marked an unprecedented demonstration of European solidarity and unity with the U.S.

Europe strongly backed the U.S. after 9/11 through NATO, providing troops, resources, and financial support, and sustained considerable losses in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. This collaboration represents one of the most significant examples of European-U.S. cooperation under NATO.


David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Karen Brinson Bell

Karen Brinson Bell

Photo provided

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Karen Brinson Bell

Editor’s note: More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.

Karen Brinson Bell, a Democrat and native of North Carolina, is the former executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, serving from June 2019 to May 2025. As the state’s chief election official, she was responsible for overseeing election administration for more than 7.5 million registered voters across 100 counties in North Carolina. During her tenure, she guided the state through 20 elections, including the 2024 presidential election held in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, as well as the 2020 presidential election during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under her leadership, North Carolina gained national and state recognition, earning four Clearinghouse Awards from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, two national Election Center awards, and the inaugural Partnership Award from the North Carolina Local Government Information Systems Association.

Keep ReadingShow less
As the Earth Rumbles, the Sky Calls, LaLu, the Eagle, Wants To Speak!

A reflection on freedom, democracy, and moral courage in America, urging citizens to stand up before our values fly away.

Getty Images, James Gilbert

As the Earth Rumbles, the Sky Calls, LaLu, the Eagle, Wants To Speak!

As a professional dancer, I’ve always been grounded, but the earth is rumbling, and I am uncharacteristically unsteady. I’m not alone in this feeling. Shifting cultural values are rattling our sense of moral integrity. Unfathomable words (calling a congresswoman and the people “garbage”), acts of cruelty (killing survivors stranded in the ocean), or calling a journalist “piggy,” are playfully spun as somehow normal. Our inner GPS systems are not able to locate the center.

I’m climbing trees these days in order to get up off the earth. At the age of 74, it is frankly exhilarating – I am more cognizant of the danger, so I must be attentive. All my senses are buzzing as I negotiate the craggy shape of a giant, catalpa tree. I settle into a large, gently curving limb, which hugs my body like a nest. My cries enter the vastness of the universe, and the birds sing me to sleep. I’m trying to locate myself again. Dreams are vivid up in the air.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social media apps on a phone

A Pentagon watchdog confirms senior officials shared sensitive military plans on Signal, risking U.S. troops. A veteran argues accountability is long overdue.

Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

There’s No Excuse for Signalgate

The Defense Department Inspector General just announced that information shared by Defense Secretary Hegseth in a Signal chat this spring could have indeed put U.S. troops, their mission, and national security in great peril. To recap, in an unforced error, our Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President conducted detailed discussions about an imminent military operation against Houthi targets in Yemen over Signal, a hackable commercial messaging app (that also does not comply with public record laws). These “professionals” accidentally added a journalist to the group chat, which meant the Editor-in-Chief of the Atlantic received real-time intelligence about a pending U.S. military strike, including exactly when bombs would begin falling on Yemeni targets. Had Houthi militants gotten their hands on this information, it would have been enough to help them better defend their positions if not actively shoot down the American pilots. This was a catastrophic breakdown in the most basic protocols governing sensitive information and technology. Nine months later, are we any safer?

As a veteran, I take their cavalier attitude towards national security personally. I got out of the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander after ten years as an aviator, a role that required survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training before ever deploying, in case I should ever get shot down. To think that the Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President could have so carelessly put these pilots in danger betrays the trust troops place in their Chain of Command while putting their lives on the line in the service of this country.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat's Plan for Ending the War in Gaza
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A Democrat's Plan for Ending the War in Gaza

Trump's 21-point peace plan for Gaza has not and will not go anywhere, despite its adoption by the UN Security Council. There are two reasons. One is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ultra-orthodox nationalist allies will not agree to an eventual Palestinian state in the occupied territories. The other is that Hamas will not stand down and give up its arms; its main interest is the destruction of Israel, not the creation of a home for the Palestinian people.

Democrats should operate as the "loyal opposition" and propose a different path to end the "war" and establish peace. So far, they have merely followed the failed policies of the Biden administration.

Keep ReadingShow less