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

The Expand Democracy 5

The Expand Democracy 5

RCV Critics, the “Re-Gerrymander”, Citizen Initiatives, Deliberative Democracy

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. In August, the Expand Democracy team will be taking a break from creating new content, but we look forward to sharing grouped content from this year’s editions that they believe still remains relevant. Today's stories include:

🗳️ Deep dive: Ranked choice voting and its critics

Keep ReadingShow less
Girls drawing an American flag with chalk
United States continues to be a ‘flawed democracy’ in annual study
LWA/Dann Tardif/Getty Images

Innovating America’s Democracy Is Our Tradition and Our Responsibility

The American story is one of constant innovation and renewal, where democracy rises to meet the challenges of each new age. Our history documents a journey of transformation, inviting us to reflect on centuries of innovation in American democracy. Citizens have routinely amended outdated practices, reinforced core tenets, and forged new institutions. Our story highlights that reform is not only possible—it is tradition.

As we celebrate America’s 250th year, which began on July 4, 2025, we must also reflect on the nature of innovations in our democracy as a platform for encouraging Americans to embrace the next phase of reform. If we are successful in adding a new set of reforms to the historical arc, ones that remove the overly partisan influences on our electoral system, we might be able to reverse the hyperpartisan spiral George Washington warned us about; and we may re-align our electoral incentives to promote the kind of cooperation among elected leaders that might allow us to have on-time responsible budgets and the kinds of practical policies the country needs. It feels like a daunting task, but our forebears often tackled what were monumental revisions to our democracy in their times. And it would be a shame to let the 250th anniversary of our country come and go without taking up the charge given to us by those who came before us, the responsibility to leave our generation’s mark on our improving democracy. We have all the tools and ideas we need. We must decide if we have the will.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands raised in a classroom.​
In the summer of 2025, the Trump administration’s education agenda is beginning to mirror the blueprint laid out in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Getty Images, FreshSplash

Ukrainian Teen, U.S. Student: A Shared Fight for Stability

Heart-stopping: not the description that comes to mind for most high school volunteer projects. But on a Friday afternoon late last March, my role as a virtual English tutor with ENGin was exactly that.

For nearly a year, I’ve been meeting weekly over Zoom with a 14-year-old Ukrainian teenager named Max. During our sessions, we’ll chat about everything from Marvel movies to the latest football scores—he’s a die-hard Real Madrid fan—and play games like charades or "Would You Rather." But on that particular Friday, Max wasn’t online.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: North Korea’s Nuclear Program Any More. Have We Reached an Agreement?

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump inside the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the South and North Korea on June 30, 2019 in Panmunjom, South Korea.

Getty Images, Handout

Just the Facts: North Korea’s Nuclear Program Any More. Have We Reached an Agreement?

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, we 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.

We haven't heard much about North Korea's nuclear program lately, not because there's been a breakthrough agreement, but because the situation has largely hardened into a new, more dangerous normal.

Keep ReadingShow less