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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Department of Homeland Security has faced criticism over it's handling of immigration enforcement leaving the department unfunded.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Kristi Noem deserved to get axed. After ignoring thousands of stories of officers detaining American citizens in violent, indiscriminate, unconstitutional roundups, posing for a gleeful photo-op at a hellacious El Salvadoran prison, labeling American protesters as domestic terrorists, and lying under oath multiple times, Democrats and even many Republicans lauded her exodus. Still, in what was a brief, volatile tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem transformed the agency charged with the protection of the American people into a theater for performative cruelty. Now, as the door hits Noem on the way out, it is important to note that her ouster was not a triumph of ethics or the law or even a sudden recollection of what competence looks like. Despite no lack of legitimate grounds for dismissal, most sources say the final straw was a $220 million ad blitz, possibly complicated by an alleged affair with her adviser. But who among Trump’s inner circle doesn’t come with a laundry list of wasteful spending and personal embarrassments? The rest of the Cabinet is chock full of unqualified Trump-loyalists demonstrating incompetence so regularly that in any other era they would have all resigned or been canned long ago. Given the purported reasons Noem was ultimately fired, and where the conversation has lingered since, to the untrained eye, it seems like Noem may have been the first to get the boot, at least in part because she’s not a man.

There’s nothing Noem did that another member of the cabinet or Trump himself couldn’t top. Consider the shameful tenure of our Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who engaged in intimate business deals with Epstein years after Epstein’s first conviction, and even planned family vacations to his private island. While Noem is fired for a $220 million ad buy, Lutnick remains the face of American business, despite once being in business with a convicted sex trafficker and lying about it. And our wannabe-fraternity-pledgemaster Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, if possible, an even greater liability. Hegseth breached security protocol in his second month on the job and oversaw a record $93 billion of spending in a single month, $9 million going to king crab and lobster tails, and $15 million to ribeye steaks. More gravely, in his zeal to project “lethality," Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation programs by 90 percent; shortly thereafter, on his watch, in what is the most devastating single military error in modern history, the U.S. fired a Tomahawk missile into a school full of children, killing at least 168 children and 14 teachers. Noem may have turned federal agents against American civilians (which is not why she was fired), but Hegseth is committing war crimes around the globe.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less