The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stands as a bedrock of transatlantic security, keeping the peace through the collective defense commitments of its member states. For centuries, European countries fought wars among themselves, but since NATO’s founding in 1949, that has largely halted.
NATO has pivoted from its singular focus on the Soviet Union and Russia to the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. In addition, President Trump led the NATO allies to recognize the increasing hostility of China, and he focused on the need to unite in efforts to curb its predatory tactics and deter China’s ability to infiltrate the communications systems of our allies. Amid this backdrop, the Trump Administration embarked on a mission to revitalize and strengthen NATO, reaffirming America’s commitment to its allies while advancing a vision of security rooted in the principles of the America First policy.
Today, America’s relationship with NATO and our European allies is in trouble. Despite pressure from multiple U.S. presidents — especially President Trump — to convince NATO members to meet their treaty obligations of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense, as of February 2024, only 18 of NATO’s 31 members had met this goal.4
According to a Heritage Foundation study, the European defense spending picture is even worse. The report notes that the British army is at its smallest since 1710, and would struggle to put a single
division in the field. Germany had 5,000 battle tanks during the Cold War but has only 300 today. France has only 222 tanks and 19 large surface warships, according to the report.5
Many European states also have come under criticism for not contributing enough to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. According to the same Heritage report, although three Western European states — the UK, Netherlands, and Norway — have exceeded U.S. aid to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP (0.37 percent), several other Western European states have given far less. Germany has provided only 0.2 percent of GDP in aid to Ukraine; France, 0.06 percent; and Italy, 0.06 percent. (Six East European states have given more aid to Ukraine than the United States as a percentage of GDP.)6
The failure of major European states to pay a fair share of their collective defense and aid to Ukraine has become a growing concern among many in Congress in light of the over $113 billion in humanitarian, financial, and military aid the United States has provided to Ukraine since February 2022 and another $61 billion approved by Congress in April 2024. (Please see Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of America First and the war in Ukraine.)
These developments raise questions about America’s defense relationships with NATO and its European allies. Under an America First approach, these relationships should be partnerships in which all members carry their weight and fairly contribute to our collective defense. Moreover, European conflicts like the war in Ukraine should be the primary responsibility of European states. It makes little sense for the United States to spend a greater percentage of its GDP on the war than France, Italy, and Germany. The American taxpayer should not bear a larger burden of this war than European taxpayers.
A future America First president must put strong pressure on European states to spend their fair share on collective defense and assume greater responsibility for defending their regional interests. With 13 NATO members currently falling short of their 2 percent spending obligation, accountability is key.
The United States should also push NATO to appoint a new secretary general from an Eastern European country closer to the Russian threat. It is worth noting that NATO’s Eastern European members have contributed far above their 2 percent obligations.
Rectifying defense spending deficiencies is not just about finances. It is about reaffirming NATO’s solidarity against evolving threats, such as China’s growing influence and aggression. America must be able to depend on NATO for any confrontation with the Chinese Communist Party. For nearly eight decades, the United States has defended Europe from Russian aggression. Now, the United States needs to be certain that NATO will have its back regarding China.
How President Trump Held NATO Accountable
One of the Trump Administration’s most important foreign policy achievements was significant progress in rebalancing financial contributions among NATO member states. For years, the United States complained that the American taxpayer shouldered a disproportionate burden in funding NATO’s operations and capabilities.7 But until President Trump arrived, those complaints resulted in no action.
President Trump’s effective push for member nations to fulfill their financial commitments not only strengthened the alliance but also reiterated the strategic advantage of U.S. leadership in defending democratic principles worldwide. By the end of 2020, NATO allies committed to increasing defense spending by $130 billion, a testament to the administration’s efforts to ensure fair burden-sharing within the alliance.8 President Trump’s insistence that all NATO partners contribute adequately to defense expenditures underscored a key principle: NATO should be supported financially by all members, not primarily the United States.9 While only three NATO members met the two percent GDP spending threshold when President Trump took office, an additional five countries joined that cohort in 2019, resulting in a collective investment increase of $130 billion.
The Trump Administration’s work to make NATO stronger will have lasting effects. It shows how important it is for countries to work together toward mutual defense. Marshall Billingslea, a former Treasury Department assistant secretary who worked on stopping terrorism financing, says NATO
countries need to share defense costs more fairly. Even though Germany has started to spend more on defense, Billingslea points out it will take more than a year to make up for past shortfalls. Billingslea believes it is crucial that NATO members meet their defense spending commitments so the alliance can address new threats, known and unknown.10
Beyond financial contributions, the Trump Administration also stepped up efforts to promote defense investment and modernization within the alliance. Recognizing the need to adapt to evolving security threats, the administration advocated for increased investments in critical capabilities and technologies to enhance NATO’s deterrence posture.11
NATO countries agreed to spend $400 billion more on their militaries by 2024. This money will go toward better equipment and facilities.12 This significant investment in defense modernization signaled NATO’s readiness to confront emerging threats and maintain a credible deterrent posture in an increasingly complex security environment.
The Trump Administration also pushed for a stronger NATO role in Eastern Europe to confront a resurgent Russian aggression. The administration conducted more military exercises and increased the presence of troops in NATO members closest to Russia. Trump also urged NATO to do more about terrorism and immigration challenges. By pushing for NATO’s increased involvement in non-traditional security areas, the Trump Administration sought to adapt the alliance’s mandate to reflect contemporary challenges, enhancing its relevance and effectiveness in safeguarding transatlantic security.13
Subscribe below to receive the next post in my America First Foreign Policy series: : Do we have friends in Asia? Why revitalizing our Asian alliances is key to dealing with China