Conor Kelly, The University of California – Santa Barbara
Introduction
Donald Trump, since his first term as President of the United States has criticized the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) as being “obsolete.” He complained about NATO members failing to live up to their defense spending obligations and pushed a narrative that other nations were essentially free-riding while relying on the U.S. for a security guarantee. In his second term, Trump has gone further in his disdain for NATO, encouraging adversaries to “do whatever the hell they want” to member nations who are failing to spend 2% of their gross domestic products on defense. While it is logical to want to make NATO members follow through with their spending commitments, Trump’s hostility towards NATO as an institution is antithetical to America’s security interests. America has benefited from NATO perhaps the most of any member, because of its allowing for American influence across the globe, as well as in its Article V provisions of “an attack against one is an attack against all.” After the 9/11 attacks, the United States invoked Article V for the first and only time and saw allies come to its aid in the subsequent fighting in the Middle East. Contrary to Trump’s claims about NATO’s obsolescence and the way the U.S. is being “ripped off,” a dismantling of the alliance could leave the U.S. far more insecure than it is today. Trump’s undermining of NATO principles is part of the broader isolationist and anti-Europe stance of Trump’s administration in his second term.
Funding Commitments
In 2006, NATO countries committed to spending at least 2% of the value of each of their gross domestic products per year on their military and defense spending. The commitment serves as an indication of each country’s willingness to contribute to the alliance tangibly. It also aids in one of the foundational goals of NATO: to deter non-member states from attacking members and promote international peace by maintaining a strong and formidable posture. This benefits every member of the alliance – especially the United States. Donald Trump is correct in saying that many members have historically not lived up to their 2% minimum spending obligation. When Trump first took office in 2017, only four out of the 32 NATO members met the 2% cutoff. However, in 2024 that number has increased to 23 total nations with every member having increased their defense spending since 2024.
The United States benefits significantly from NATO membership relative to what it pays for those benefits. For example, in 2025 the United States will fund about 15% of NATO’s total “common funds” of about 5.2 billion dollars, a contribution matched by Germany. This budget helps pay for essential military infrastructure like bases and enables military operations and exercises across the globe which bolster the security of members including the U.S. When considering the ratio of NATO contributions to total GDP across different nations, it becomes clear that the United States is not being “ripped off” and is rather getting a deal for the amount of benefits it receives. The United States contributed roughly 567 million dollars of the funding to NATO’s expenditures in 2023 with a GDP of about 27.7 trillion dollars in the same year. By comparison, Germany–which contributed approximately the same amount of funding–had a GDP of about 4.5 trillion dollars. The same amount of spending from a smaller, less rich country. Another example is the United Kingdom which contributed about 11% of the budget, despite having a GDP of under 3.4 trillion USD. To put this in perspective, the United States contributes a share to the NATO budget that is 4% greater than the United Kingdom, but has a GDP that is seven times greater.
The New American Posture
The funds contributed by the U.S. helps maintain its status as a global hegemonic power. The United States has thousands of troops stationed across the globe in NATO countries. Since its inception, NATO countries have allowed and often invited the United States to establish a military presence within their borders. Contributing to American soft-power influence as well as hard-power military dominance globally. This influence has solidified the United States’ economic position as well and played a role in it becoming essentially the center of the economic world due to free global trade. Norwegian scholar Geir Lundestad famously said this process was effectively the United States becoming an “empire by invitation,” something that was almost entirely provided for by the existence of NATO.
The President’s cabinet presents a united front on the issue, with Department of Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth echoing Trump’s attitude on NATO in February 2025. Hegseth articulated an unwillingness to aid Ukraine in taking back captured territory from Russia and stated that Ukraine could not be allowed to join NATO. This sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. If the U.S. is not willing to protect NATO members or vulnerable countries from authoritarians, other countries may be more willing to test the limits of American isolationism. One specific situation that could become more volatile without the United States’ military deterrence is China’s desire to annex Taiwan. If the rising superpower decided to take action in claiming the small island nation, the United States would have to decide on how to respond.
Trump’s Vice-President, JD Vance has perhaps been even more explicit in undermining not just NATO, but also diplomatic relations with Europe. Vance has attempted to influence German politics by meeting with members of its far-right extremist party, the “Alternative for Deutschland,” which has been explicitly designated as extremist and unconstitutional by German authorities. In February, Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference where he scolded Germany for its “brandmauer,” the firewall that has essentially frozen far-right parties out of the German government since World War II. Vance criticized the firewall on the grounds that it was undemocratic, “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls,” Vance said. Considering the obvious historical trauma that justifies Germany’s exclusion of the far-right, Vance is also wrong in calling it undemocratic. This is because Germans have voted for the parties who are excluding the far-right. He stated that “the voice of the people matters” and for years, the people have voted to exclude the anti-democracy German right.
Regardless, Vance’s talking down to Germany represents a flagrant disregard for its autonomy as a nation and a callous attempt to empower a German party with nearly identical policies as the American right in some areas. This, along with a growing list of other instances represents the global bullying that has become characteristic of the Trump administration. This type of diplomacy threatens to disintegrate nearly 80 years of good relations between the United States and Europe and will likely backfire.
Conclusion
Donald Trump and his administration’s disregard for the NATO alliance and the post-World War II relationships of the U.S. will certainly work against him and the interests of the country. The foolish and arrogant diplomatic attitudes of the Trump regime are shocking the world and causing a total breakdown in trust with other nations, especially for some of America’s closest allies. Trump bullying NATO members and raving about member states not paying their dues is going to lead to an erosion of the hugely beneficial relationship between the U.S. and its NATO allies. The Trump regime, in an attempt to “return” the United States to fictional glory days of the 1800s, is actively destroying the United State’s global power. The Trump presidency may be reflected in future history books as a turning point for the American empire, and the beginning of the end of its hegemony.
The Global Affairs Journal 
Leave a comment