Trump’s Second Term Puts NATO on Unsteady Ground
As Donald Trump begins his second term in the White House, NATO faces fresh uncertainty. Reports that the U.S. may drastically cut funding to the alliance are fueling concern across Europe.
A leaked White House memo suggests that the U.S. State Department’s budget could be slashed by 50% in the upcoming fiscal year, with virtually no funding allocated for NATO’s common budget. This comes as the alliance contends with its greatest security challenge since the Cold War — Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and its growing threats toward NATO’s eastern members.
The memo has intensified fears that Trump may continue to undermine the alliance. Rumors of U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe and a potential handover of leadership of NATO’s European command add to the unease. Yet, there may still be room for maneuver. The State Department has responded to the leaked plans, calling the memo a “suggestion” rather than a final decision, and reaffirmed the U.S.’s commitment to NATO.
It’s also important to note that NATO’s funding does not fall solely on the State Department. The Defense Department shares in these responsibilities. And despite Trump’s past claims, the U.S. does not shoulder the majority of NATO’s costs — far from it.
Setting the Record Straight: U.S. Funding and NATO
Trump has frequently misrepresented the U.S. contribution to NATO, once claiming that America covers 80% of the alliance’s costs — a gross exaggeration. In reality, the U.S. contributes about 16% to NATO’s common budget, approximately $830 million in 2025 — roughly the same as Germany. The U.K. and France follow with 11% and 10%, respectively, while most other allies contribute smaller shares based on their economic size.
NATO’s common budget totals around $5.2 billion, representing just 0.3% of total allied defense spending. These funds are split into three main categories:
- Civilian Budget: $550 million to support NATO Headquarters, diplomacy, and administration — this is the segment most directly affected by proposed State Department cuts.
- Military Budget: Covers operations, missions, and command structures; funded by national defense ministries.
- NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP): Funds infrastructure projects like bases, radar systems, and airfields.
The civilian budget is primarily financed by foreign ministries, while defense ministries handle the military and NSIP budgets. So far, the Pentagon’s NATO contributions have not been targeted — though Trump’s broader budget cuts have already hit areas like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at the Department of Defense, with more austerity likely.
Strategic Consequences for Europe
Trump’s skepticism of NATO is no secret. During his first term, he pushed to reduce America’s contribution to the alliance from 22% and chastised allies for not spending enough on their own defense. Now, there are growing concerns that Trump’s policies could weaken NATO from within, even without a formal U.S. exit.
European leaders are increasingly preparing for a future where they may have to shoulder more of the burden. While the financial gap left by Washington could be filled — NATO’s common budget is relatively small — the symbolic weight of such a withdrawal would be significant.
"The Europeans could fill the gap because these funds are not very large," said James Goldgeier, professor at American University. "But a U.S. pullback would signal that this administration no longer sees NATO as a joint enterprise among equals."
The timing couldn’t be worse. Russia is not only escalating its aggression in Ukraine but has begun issuing direct threats to NATO’s eastern front. Meanwhile, the Trump administration reportedly plans to withdraw around 10,000 troops from the region, signaling a diminished U.S. commitment to the alliance.
DDDD
Mixed Signals from Washington
During a visit to NATO Headquarters on April 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to reassure allies, stating: "President Trump has made clear he supports NATO. We're going to remain in NATO." Still, Rubio also echoed Trump’s push for members to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP — an ambitious ask, especially amid proposed U.S. budget cuts.
Within Trump's orbit, more hardline voices have emerged. Tech billionaire Elon Musk has publicly supported withdrawing from NATO, and some Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation to make that happen.
Despite this, legal safeguards exist. In December 2023, Rubio co-sponsored a bill preventing any U.S. president from leaving NATO without congressional approval. Even so, critics warn that Trump doesn’t need to formally exit the alliance to weaken it — his actions alone could erode NATO’s credibility and cohesion.
Trump has already cast doubt on NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, saying he would not defend members who fall short on their defense spending. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them,” Trump declared in March. “It’s common sense.”
A Fracturing Alliance?
Trump’s rhetoric and policies are already changing how Europe views the transatlantic relationship. “The West as we knew it no longer exists,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in April.
Germany’s incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz, long a proponent of close U.S.-Europe ties, acknowledged the shifting landscape. “Our goal must be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible,” he said, “so that we can gradually achieve true independence from the U.S.”
As NATO navigates a new geopolitical era, the alliance’s future may depend not only on budgets, but on the strength — or fragility — of its political unity.
Comments
Post a Comment