U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whittaker has issued a clarion call for increased investment in modern warfighting capabilities as the alliance grapples with escalating geopolitical tensions. In a recent interview with CNBC, Whittaker had a particularly poignant observation. He announced that NATO partners can no longer count on a “free ride” from the United States in defense spending. We are at an exciting crossroads with the upcoming NATO Leaders Summit taking place in The Hague, Netherlands. Whether it’s climate change, racial equity, public health or affordable housing, this election will elevate unprecedented issues to center stage.
Whittaker’s comments are made in the context of a deepening sentiment among NATO allies that the alliance’s defense spending needs to dramatically increase. He stressed that the 5% of GDP target for defense spending is not a farcical negotiating position. It’s an important yardstick to maintain NATO’s preparedness to face the threats of today. This target is a big deal. European countries are under increasing pressure, with the continuing conflict in Ukraine and escalating tensions between Israel and Iran.
The urgency of Whittaker’s message is underscored by some recent developments. In 2017, former U.S. President Donald Trump questioned America’s commitment to NATO and criticized other member states for their failure to meet defense spending commitments. He berated allies for not paying up, for being “on the hook” for protection with “massive amounts of money.” This badly overstated claim has resonated deeply with many in the coalition.
Putting aside Trump’s own hypocrisy on the matter, reality on the ground reflects a dramatic uptick in European defense spending. Countries are under pressure to strengthen their militaries after the threats posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine became clear. Not all member states are in agreement with this vote—in fact, far from it. Spain has deemed the 5% GDP target as “unreasonable.” Given the threat to US economic interests implied by this dissent, its potential to scuttle important negotiations at the forthcoming summit is alarming.
Germany’s newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz has met with Trump recently in Washington, D.C. So they really tried to rhetorically put their debates on NATO commitments. Unfortunately, much of that discussion was drowned out by the back-and-forth between Trump and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk on social media. These internal distractions could further muddy NATO’s already difficult task of appearing united on defense spending.
The geopolitical landscape is changing drastically by the day, with the United States having just executed direct military strikes against Iran. This latter action, in particular, represents a major escalation of current tensions and has elicited a particularly vitriolic response from Iranian officials. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the strikes as “outrageous” and asserted that Iran “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.” Such statements do not reflect reality but rather the increased risk of dangerous miscalculations that could lead to an escalation into larger conflicts.
While NATO leaders prepare for their July summit, please consider signing this letter. They confront new, difficult problems such as regional destabilization and intra-alliance disputes over financial burden-sharing. The war in Ukraine continues to be the most pressing agenda item for NATO. Highlighted in the document is the importance of robust collective defense measures and increased military readiness.
With much at stake, NATO finds itself in choppy waters. The alliance’s ability to adapt to contemporary threats will be tested, and the leadership must ensure that all member states understand the necessity of increased investment in defense capabilities. The next NATO summit in The Hague will be one of the most consequential ones yet for the alliance. Leaders need to smooth their jarring perspectives and sync their visions into a cohesive plan to address urgent near-term and strategic long-term security priorities.