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

Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

For the People, By the People

Democracy was once America’s proudest legacy — the last best hope on earth, a torch that lit the path for nations worldwide. Today, dysfunction grips all three branches of government: Congress abandons its duty to the people, the President exploits power for retribution, and the Supreme Court fails to enforce accountability. This betrayal of trust places our republic at risk. Americans must reclaim democracy from dysfunction and abuse of power.

The United States is both a participatory democracy — by the people, for the people — and a constitutional republic. Power lies with the people, and elected officials are entrusted to serve them. The President enforces the laws, Congress checks executive power, and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. These checks and balances are designed to prevent abuse of power, yet Congress and the Court have abandoned their duty (U.S. Constitution).

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less