Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

Gerrymandering, California, and a Fight the Democrats Can Only Lose

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about the “Election Rigging Response Act” at a press conference at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Mario Tama

Gerrymandering, California, and a Fight the Democrats Can Only Lose

California Democrats are getting ready for a fight they can’t win. And taxpayers will foot the bill for the privilege.

Governor Gavin Newsom, backed by national party operatives, appears poised to put a statewide gerrymander on the ballot under the banner of “fighting Trump.” The plan? Overturn California’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, redraw congressional maps, and lock in party control well into the next decade.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close-up of a microphone during a session of government.
Rev. Laurie Manning shares her insights on speaking with political leaders about specific advocacy efforts. "Your senators' offices are waiting to hear from you," writes Manning.
Getty Images, Semen Salivanchuk

How To Rewire a Nation From a Single Seat

In politics, attention is drawn to spectacle. Cable news runs endless loops of red-faced lawmakers clashing in hearings, while pundits dissect every gaffe and polling shift. Every election season becomes a staged drama, parties locked in opposition, candidates maneuvering for advantage. The players may change, but the script stays the same. Those in power know that as long as the public watches the visible fracas, the hidden machinery of control runs quietly, unexamined and untouched.

We are told the drama hinges on which party controls which chamber, which map shapes the advantage, and which scandal sidelines a rising star. These are presented as the key moves in the political game, shifting the balance of power. Every election is declared the most consequential of our time. But these claims are, in reality, crude distractions—very much part of the performance—while the real levers of power turn behind the scenes, where laws and policies shift with the choices of a few hundred individuals, each capable of tipping the balance with a single vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Gerrymandering Crisis: Why Voters Are Losing Power in Texas and Beyond

People rally during the "Stop the Trump takeover" demonstration outside of the State Capitol on August 16, 2025 in Austin, Texas. Over 200 nationwide demonstrations occurred today against the Trump administration's newly introduced redistricting plans.

Getty Images, Brandon Bell

America’s Gerrymandering Crisis: Why Voters Are Losing Power in Texas and Beyond

Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around. The Texas gerrymander and the partisan war it has triggered signal an extraordinarily dangerous period for American democracy.

Gerrymandering leads to less choice, less representation for voters, and less accountability for politicians. It also produces more polarization, as party primary voters rather than general election voters have the loudest say. And voters of color all too often suffer the most as their communities are cynically sliced and diced to engineer partisan advantage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Redistricting Showdown: Why the Fight Over Five GOP Seats Reveals a Broken System

A person views a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, Texas

Getty Images, Brandon Bell

Texas Redistricting Showdown: Why the Fight Over Five GOP Seats Reveals a Broken System

The fight over congressional redistricting in Texas continues to simmer. Democratic state representatives fled the state to block the passage of a rare mid-decade, Republican-drawn map that would give the GOP an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives if put into effect before the midterms. In response, Governor Greg Abbott threatened to remove the absent members from their seats and arrest them.

The Texas Democrats responded with “come and take it,” an overt reference to a slogan from the Texas Revolution. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who welcomed the fleeing Texas legislators to his state, called Abbott a “joke.”

Keep ReadingShow less