Donald Trump often claims credit for having “saved” NATO during his presidency, a statement that, to some degree, holds true. According to Trump, his threats to withdraw support from European allies have resulted in an impressive $680 billion increase in contributions from NATO member states that had previously failed to meet their financial commitments. This includes Germany, which, after enduring Trump’s pointed criticism in 2018, is now finally making its fair share of payments.
However, the stakes at the upcoming NATO summit are set to rise dramatically. Alliance leaders will discuss a significant hike in defense spending from the current target of 2 percent of GDP to a staggering 5 percent—a goal that many, including Germany, have only just begun to achieve.
When Trump proposed the 5 percent figure before returning to the White House in January, many at NATO HQ in Brussels perceived it as a negotiation tactic, aiming to start high in hopes of securing a more favorable compromise. However, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who previously managed to soothe tensions with Trump during the 2018 summit, believes member states may very well consider this increase necessary to strengthen the U.S. commitment to European defense and bolster military assistance for Ukraine.
With conditions in the Middle East permitting, Trump is expected to play a prominent role at the Hague summit, his confidence buoyed after a recent U.S. airstrike he described as the “obliteration” of Iranian nuclear facilities. Should NATO allies agree to his ambitious 5 percent spending target, Trump will likely assert that he has once again “saved” the alliance.
Yet, some analysts cast doubt on whether Trump’s potential victory—if he successfully persuades Europe to shoulder more of its defense costs—will benefit the U.S. as much as he anticipates. European nations, especially Germany, have begun to increase their military expenditures, but this may come with unintended consequences.
Historically, NATO’s strength relied on a clear bargaining system: American military spending far outweighed that of other members to ensure Western Europe’s security, a necessity of being a superpower with a robust defense industry. As European countries increase their military budgets, they are also acutely aware of the U.S.’s right to impose conditions on the use of certain American-made weapons. This was notably illustrated in Ukraine, where it took until 2024 for then-President Joe Biden to authorize the use of long-range missiles for strikes against Russia, a decision Trump has criticized.
An American security official shared concerns about this dynamic: “If there is a risk that America might one day restrict the use of weapons purchased, then the Europeans have an incentive to not buy American. It’s a card they have to play and, in my opinion, a card they should play in negotiations.”
If European allies invest seriously in their own security, it could adversely affect U.S. defense companies, especially as many now view Trump’s America as an unreliable partner, leading them to consider purchasing from European manufacturers instead. “If the Europeans do fulfil the outer limits of their ambitions, then they will eventually have an arms industry that competes with ours,” the security official added.
Broader security concerns exist, as officials worry that NATO members may be prioritizing appeasing Trump over addressing genuine threats from adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. A senior NATO diplomat remarked, “We are so focused on this one summit, and that one deliverable, that we have not had an honest discussion about what’s next. We are becoming a short term-oriented organization instead of a long-term focused alliance.”
There is universal agreement among allies that defense spending must be increased, particularly in Europe. Decades of minimal investment—rooted in the belief that land-based conflict on the continent was a relic of the past—have decommissioned arms reserves, especially in light of the military aid needed for Ukraine. Consequently, NATO’s eastern front appears increasingly vulnerable.
There is no discounting that Trump’s tough stance on European allies has spurred them to up their defense budgets. In an effort to make the 5 percent target more acceptable, Rutte has suggested that 3.5 percent be allocated to direct defense expenses, mirroring current American spending, while the remaining 1.5 percent could encompass broader “defense-related expenditures” that could include essential infrastructure, as long as it supports military logistics.
“That might mean countries try to jimmy things into their budget to reach a target, rather than sensibly spending on things they actually need,” noted John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
Ahead of the summit, NATO allies established several “capability targets”—specific objectives outlining what each country should be prepared to contribute in the event of a military operation. These targets are kept secret for security reasons but reportedly include a dramatic 400 percent increase in NATO’s air and missile defense capabilities.
Identifying current weaknesses in defense and crafting a long-term strategy are crucial steps, yet experts caution that these efforts do not align with Trump’s arbitrary spending objectives. For instance, following former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s 2022 announcement of a €100 billion investment in Germany’s military, the initiative faltered as planning processes grew convoluted, yielding a strategy that was ineffective before it was even implemented.
“The core question remained—what is the right way to spend all of this money in a way that addresses the long-term security of Germany?” William Alberque, a former NATO arms control director, stated.
Another significant challenge in increasing defense budgets is convincing voters. Investing more in military capabilities generally necessitates diverting funds from other public services. Alberque observed, “If you cannot make the case that buying weapons and reorganizing your military is the most efficient—and not the most expedient—use of your budget, you may lose votes.”
Moreover, adversaries like Russia and China are actively disseminating disinformation to incite public skepticism regarding defense spending and the NATO alliance.
Reporting leading up to the summit suggests that the Trump administration had attempted to restrict discussions related to Ukraine, positioning the White House as seeking diplomatic openings rather than framing Russia solely as an adversary. Still, officials clarify that Ukraine will remain part of the final declaration, albeit framed in a manner that allows for some discretion. It is also noteworthy that Ukraine will hold a formal session with the alliance, the only non-member country afforded such an opportunity.