NATO’s Defence Spending: Washington’s Political Will Trumps Brussels’ Consensus Diplomacy

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance’s strategic orientation.

At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO’s spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will.

When NATO’s 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035.

However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump’s framing was blunt: “Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?”

In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump’s foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence.

Trump’s foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. 

Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed.

Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system.

This further aligns with Trump’s broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump’s domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American.

With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO’s total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance’s coherence.

Another component of Trump’s rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump’s advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity.

Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force.

The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance’s resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China’s assertiveness.

The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance’s operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world."

This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO’s direction is now synchronised with Washington’s political will rather than Brussels’ consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance.

Trump’s assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO’s military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump’s insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance’s strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO’s long-term trajectory.

Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal?

A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump’s scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump’s demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying.

Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as “Brusselian cockroaches,” signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO’s view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity.

By meeting Trump’s demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine’s war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe’s collective security.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump’s “decisive action in Iran” and describing him as a “man of peace” who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO’s growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte’s comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump’s primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority.

This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China’s rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance.

Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance.

If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.

Given the United States’ involvement in multiple conflict zones, most notably its pivotal role in the Russia–Ukraine war and its brokering of a truce between Israel and Iran, Trump has demonstrated significant international leverage. His influence over both Israel and Iran during a volatile period underscores his diplomatic reach.

Coupled with NATO’s shift towards a 5% GDP defence commitment, Trump has dispelled the notion that he is merely a domestic president. He now positions himself as a formidable actor in global affairs, asserting his distinct brand of foreign policy: transactional, assertive, and strategically unilateral.

The Hague Summit has decisively altered NATO’s trajectory, embedding Trump’s strategic priorities into its long-term framework. Whether viewed as a triumph of American leadership or a pragmatic response to global threats, the 5% commitment signifies a NATO increasingly shaped by Washington’s imperatives. While the alliance may emerge more capable, it does so at the expense of its traditional consensus-based ethos. NATO has entered a new era, one where financial commitment equates to political seriousness, and where U.S. influence is not only predominant but directive.

* Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.