Photo via AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Voices & Opinion

POV: The Truth behind Trump’s NATO Threats

Pardee professor and former ambassador of Montenegro in Brussels (NATO) on why the former president’s comments “shouldn’t surprise anybody”

Former President Donald Trump has a long history of bashing comments about NATO, particularly European allies. For example, he has mistreated my country, Montenegro, twice, when he shoved the Montenegro’s former Prime Minister during the 2017 NATO Summit, and when he said that defending “a tiny and aggressive nation of Montenegro” could result in World War III. Thus, his recent controversial statement about how NATO members who don’t pay their bill (don’t spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense), “delinquents” as Trump labeled them, would get no US protection, even in the case of a Russian attack, shouldn’t surprise anybody. 

However, since NATO has existed, never has a former president of the United States or a US official called another great power to attack a European ally. Following this logic, Montenegro, along with other 20 NATO members, belongs to “a group of delinquents” that should be left to the mercy of Moscow or any other potential aggressor. 

A brief look at popular misconceptions about NATO funding and a potential US withdrawal from the Alliance may help us understand that the picture is not as dark as one can conclude judging from President Trump’s statements.

For decades following World War II, Europe has counted on the US to be the ultimate guarantor of its security. The US spends more than any country in the world on defense. It allocates twice as much of its GDP, $860 billion, on defense as European allies and Canada together, $404 billion. President Trump habitually exploits the point about the European free ride on account of a supposed American protection, but he was not the one to credit for having been the first to bring up that issue to the limelight. It was former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who in 2011, under then-President Barack Obama, rebuked Europeans for not “sharing the risks and the costs.” After his stinging comments, the allies introduced a two-percent GDP defense spending target at the NATO Summit in Chicago.

How much do American taxpayers actually pay for European security? Money earmarked for defense is the investment in your own national security. A smaller percentage of the American defense budget is spent on American troops stationed in Europe or NATO-led military activities. American aid for Ukraine is not a NATO-induced cost, and Washington would do it with or without NATO membership. To that end, the EU support for Ukraine is also considerably high—since the beginning of the invasion, the Union has made available $96 billion for Kyiv, with an additional $53 billion for economic recovery. So, the point that American taxpayers are overburdened because of “European delinquents” is not valid. 

Since the NATO Summit in Chicago in 2014, European allies have steadily increased their collective investment in defense, from 1,47 percent to nearly 2 percent in 2024. Eight more members, including Montenegro, are expected to meet the two percent threshold by the end of this year. While the US remains the cornerstone of the European security architecture, with the Ukrainian war entering its third year, Europeans are becoming aware of the need not just to spend more on defense, but to address their structural vulnerabilities. If there is anything good in Trump’s statement, it is that Europe should not take the US security protection for granted and should prepare for reduced American involvement no matter who wins the Presidential election this year. 

What do the American citizens pay for? The Alliance is funded through direct or indirect contributions of its members. It is how the NATO running costs, which equate to 0.3 percent of the total NATO defense spending, or $3.5 billion in 2023, are covered. Here, things look different—the US and Germany lead with their shares of just over 16 percent (each), but European partners and Canada pay most of the bills.

But, what if Trump wins and decides to pull the US out of NATO? While this intention by itself would put the Alliance in jeopardy and would, as the NATO Secretary General said, “undermine all of our security, including that of the US,” for it to happen, the American president must acquire the Senate’s approval. This request is included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act and represents a rare example of bipartisan endorsement in American contemporary politics.

Finally, the statement that America doesn’t rely on Europe is a one-sided argument. In the 75-year-long NATO history, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty has been invoked only once by the US, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Following the attacks, NATO members, “the delinquents” and “the right ones,” including “a tiny and aggressive Montenegro,” have stayed in Afghanistan along with the US until the end of that not-well-managed operation. After 75 years, the Euro-Atlantic bond is not just security or defense; it is more about goals, principles, and a similar ideology that keeps this alliance alive.

Vesko Garčević is a Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies professor of the practice of international relations and former Ambassador of Montenegro in Brussels (NATO). He was also Montenegro’s ambassador to Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. He can be reached at veskog@bu.edu. 

“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John O’Rourke at orourkej@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.