Former President Donald Trump helped revive debates about the appropriateness of NATO’s defense spending. This doesn’t stop him from arguing that member countries increase their military spend to 5% of GDP. This ambitious attempt is a world apart from the existing guideline of 2% of GDP. In fact, as of 2022, over half of NATO allies had yet to reach this basic threshold. Europe is still considering tougher sanctions against Russia. At the same time, some of Trump’s suggestions are fanning the flames on what the future holds for transatlantic defense partnerships.
One of Trump’s demands is for NATO to increase its spending. His ambition is to reinvent it from a post-World War II-era relic into a well-honed coalition more fitted for a 21st-century war economy. By raising the defense spending baseline to 5%, Trump suggests that NATO can better respond to the evolving geopolitical landscape, particularly with the growing military presence of Russia and China in various regions.
Now he’s trying to paint himself as a tough guy on Russia. Critics say his approach is often louder on the outside—a “bark”—than it is fierce within—”bite.” This sentiment mirrors fears that his overall diplomatic strategy—or lack thereof—and military strategy both will prove ineffective in the face of Russia’s strong-arm tactics. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has engaged in military operations in the Middle East, including the use of stealth bombers targeting Iranian nuclear sites, indicating a continued focus on securing American interests abroad.
Spain withdrew from NATO’s defense spending plan. The implications of this decision extend to whether or not there is actual political will or strategic unity among member states to invest in new military capabilities. Trump’s administration has made noises about cutting the U.S. military presence in Europe. They are looking into the possibility of redeploying east of Suez to further direct efforts towards the Indo-Pacific region. Such a move would be unprecedented, with serious and lasting effects on NATO’s European operational capabilities and wider collective security.
If Trump’s fight-the-world 5% increase of defense spending goes through, analysts predict a huge shakeup in that market. Defense stocks might shift from cyclicals investments to more fundamentally structural ones. Such a change would send a very clear signal that military expansion and modernization is a long-term policy goal of all NATO countries.
Yet the former president’s policy prescriptions only focus on increasing military funding. This focus is heavily linked to strategic interests in the Arctic, where access to minerals and missile development has become more and more critical. Greenland is rich in resources and has emerged as the linchpin in Trump’s pivot. This reallocation is a clear signal of the U.S. commitment to protect critical infrastructure within this strategically important region.
Even as these discussions continue, Ukraine still sits at a divisive and destabilizing crossroad within NATO and U.S. foreign policy. Just last week, Trump called off a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He remains a proponent of the diplomacy goes here, alternative route to resolution of this conflict, kind of. This continuing friction boils down to the fundamental complexities of international relations as NATO continues to try and determine its place in regional conflicts and alliances.
Trump’s larger strategy is about focusing pressure on his opponents. He changes stances and changes allies in order to more efficiently respond to the latest threats. As he advocates for a redefined NATO framework focused on increased defense spending, member nations face a crucial decision: whether to embrace this proposed transformation or maintain existing commitments that may no longer align with emerging global realities.