Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

“Delinquent” and “obsolete:” Trump’s rhetoric threatens transatlantic stability of NATO

“Delinquent” and “obsolete:” Trump’s rhetoric threatens transatlantic stability of NATO

Unidentified Italian NATO soldiers patrol in a tank

Getty Images/Per-Anders Pettersson

WASHINGTON – Leaders representing the United States and Russia met this week to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine as European NATO leaders and the Ukrainians themselves were iced out of the negotiations despite their enormous stake in the issue. But it’s only one snub in a long line of affronts to NATO at the hands of President Donald Trump, dating back to his first term.

“NATO countries must pay MORE, the United States must pay LESS. Very Unfair!” Trump tweeted back in 2018. He accused member countries of not pulling their weight in defense spending, calling them “delinquent” and the alliance “obsolete.”


Since taking office for the second time last month, he has again singled out this issue. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos just days after his inauguration, Trump demanded the alliance increase the target for defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, more than double the current 2% guideline.

NATO introduced the 2% goal in 2014. At the time, only three of 28 member countries met that target; estimates for 2024 show 23 countries reaching it, out of 32 (four countries joined in the interim). It’s generally agreed that the jump over the last decade is likely due to several factors, including pressure applied by the Trump administration during its first term.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But even though NATO members’ defense spending is on the rise, Trump has made clear he believes it is not enough.

Why 5%?

“For a number of members of the alliance, that 5% number is eye-watering,” said Susan Colbourn, a professor at the University of Toronto whose research specializes in NATO and European security.

For reference: in 2024, the U.S. spent an estimated 3.4% of its GDP on defense – more than the 2% guideline but well short of the 5% Trump envisions.

Yet speaking to reporters after his comments in Davos, Trump declined to commit the U.S. to the 5% mark, setting up a double standard that will likely make the new 5% target a tough sell to allies.

“Nobody's going to go to 5% if we don't,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kaine and his committee colleague Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) both acknowledged that NATO countries do need to spend more on defense, an assessment widely shared by experts.

“Increased defense spending, particularly by the non-U.S. members of the alliance, is absolutely a good investment and necessary,” said Colbourn.

Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, has already indicated that defense spending must increase, and Colbourn expects the issue to be on the agenda at NATO’s June summit at The Hague.

How the additional funds should be spent remains unclear.

“You shouldn’t increase defense spending just to increase defense spending,” said Katherine Dahlstrand, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “You should be doing so with a clear goal in mind as to where you're going to put that money. What can I spend it on?“

Dahlstrand said that much of that money should be going towards equipment, including air defense and munitions stock. Currently, NATO policy commits members to putting 20% of their defense spending towards new equipment.

The Future of NATO

“The cynical interpretation,” said Colbourn, “is that 5% is calibrated intentionally to be so high that it is impossible for the allies to meet, and then could be used as a pretext for President Trump to in some way revise or overhaul the United States participation in NATO.”

During his first term, Trump reportedly discussed pulling the U.S. out of NATO with aides on multiple occasions. The current Trump administration did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

An exit via executive order, however, is no longer an easy option. A bill passed by Congress in 2023 included a measure, introduced by Sen. Kaine and former senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority to withdraw from NATO.

But Trump doesn’t need to officially pull the U.S. out of NATO to cause serious damage to the alliance, Colbourn said.

The backbone of NATO is Article V of its charter, the mutual self-defense clause that calls on all members to come to the aid of any one member country that is attacked.

But each time Trump threatens America’s commitment to NATO allies, for example, by questioning America’s Article V pledge or contemplating the seizure of Greenland, a territory belonging to NATO member Denmark, the damage is felt, said Colbourn.

“All of those signals and statements erode the credibility of the alliance itself,” Colbourn said. “It's ultimately based on things like trust and confidence that the core pledge at the heart of the treaty will work.”

If NATO falls apart, she said, it would put the world in “a period of considerable realignment in the overall patterns of international politics.”

With Russia’s war in Ukraine ongoing and China sizing up Taiwan, she noted parallels to the world order of the 19th century, when great powers carved up the globe into spheres of influence. The delicacy of this moment is not lost on lawmakers.

“At this critical moment, when Vladimir Putin continues to inflict his campaign, his war against democracy, we need that NATO commitment to be stronger than ever,” said Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), the vice ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“And at the end of the day, this is about our allies,” he added. “A safe Europe means a safe America.”

Sasha Draeger-Mazer is a national security reporter for Medill News Service and studies journalism and political science at Northwestern University.

SUGGESTION: Pentagon Reportedly Pauses Plan for Mass Civilian Layoffs

Read More

Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line

Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line

Congress: Assemble!

In recent weeks, as the new administration rolls out its shock and awe beginning to President Trump's second term, many have been asking: where is the co-equal legislative branch of government? Depending on your viewpoint, you may be wondering why Congress isn't doing more to push Trump's agenda, or conversely to fight back against the executive's unconstitutional power grab. But fear not! Congress is back, baby. Finally, an issue which gets them all in a lather, with some dramatic power moves. Is it the meltdown on the stock market and the burgeoning trade war with ... pretty much everyone? Is it the 'invasion' at the southern border? The price of eggs? Err... no, none of that. It's about their own voting processes.

At the center of this controversy is House Resolution 23, which has created an unexpected alliance between Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) while simultaneously causing a rift within the Republican Party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beginning To Explore the Pro-Democracy Arena
a large white building with a flag on top of it

Beginning To Explore the Pro-Democracy Arena

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engaging diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

Over the last two months, I’ve been privileged to speak with a diversity of stakeholders who work within the pro-democracy ecosystem. These leaders are focused on improving the democratic fabric of this country through tackling issues like structural reform, bridge building, organizing the ecosystem, and place-based work. I’ll continue this series with the Fulcrum over the next few months, and welcome your feedback (and additional potential individuals to interview).

Keep ReadingShow less
Will RFK Jr. Fix America’s Life Expectancy Crisis or Worsen It?

Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon (L), and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., (C) appear during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on February 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Will RFK Jr. Fix America’s Life Expectancy Crisis or Worsen It?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has never been afraid to challenge conventional wisdom—sometimes aligning with scientific consensus, often rejecting it.

Now, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has the power to shape national healthcare policy. And many will measure his leadership with one critical question: Can he reverse America’s alarming decline in life expectancy?

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuts to science research funding cut American lives short − federal support is essential for medical breakthroughs

A stethoscope and medical charts.

Getty Images, krisanapong detraphiphat

Cuts to science research funding cut American lives short − federal support is essential for medical breakthroughs

Nearly every modern medical treatment can be traced to research funded by the National Institutes of Health: from over-the-counter and prescription medications that treat high cholesterol and pain to protection from infectious diseases such as polio and smallpox.

The remarkable successes of the decades-old partnership between biomedical research institutions and the federal government are so intertwined with daily life that it’s easy to take them for granted.

Keep ReadingShow less