
NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions
U.S. President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies.
Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time.
Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members.
The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal.
'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.'
Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures.
Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition.
European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight.
A short summit, decades of mutual security
The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording.
Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years.
Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent.
Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not.
NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility.
It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance.
A civilian runs NATO, but the U.S. and its military hold power
The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries.
NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister.
As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members.
NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer.
Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear
With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings.
More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops.
NATO's troop plans
A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern.
Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers.
It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against U.S. allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence.
The U.S. is carrying the biggest military burden
Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.
After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2% of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago.
In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5%, plus a further 1.5% for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vance says difference between this Middle East attack and others is that previous presidents were ‘dumb'
Vice President JD Vance has attempted to draw a distinction between Donald Trump 's attack on Iran and George W Bush 's War on Terror by arguing that 'back then, we had dumb presidents.' Speaking to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning, hours after the U.S. launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israel 's Operation Rising Lion offensive, Vance attacked Bush's administration and those of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden without directly naming them. 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he said. 'I understand the concern, but the difference is that, back then, we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing. 'We've gone in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear program back, we're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do.' The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of 9/11 was based on what proved to be the false premise that the dictator was harboring weapons of mass destruction. The war coincided with a period in which the U.S. was also involved in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, which proved to be an even longer commitment that only ended, chaotically, in 2021, helping inspire an aversion to 'forever wars' to which Trump himself has previously given voice. Vance himself enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from high school in 2003. He was sent to Iraq in a non-combat role for six months, an experience that is understood to have left him disillusioned and influenced his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy ever since. Trump's actions on Saturday night have already drawn comparisons with the defining blunder of the Bush era. The vice president's critique of those earlier administrations has, in turn, invited an angry response. 'This is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard any top U.S. official make,' said Michael McFaul, the former American ambassador to Russia under Obama. 'Embarrassing.' Vance's claim in the same interview that 'We're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program' was also met with incredulity. 'As war heats up, the propaganda always gets progressively dumber,' said journalist Michael Tracey. 'Imagine if some other country bombed nuclear installations in the U.S., and then tried to claim they were 'not at war with the U.S.'' On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the bombing raids on Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan sites an 'incredible and overwhelming success' that had 'devastated the Iranian nuclear programme.' Tehran has vowed to retaliate and could do so by closing the Strait of Hormuz, driving up global oil prices, or by targeting American military bases on its doorstep in the Gulf. Trump has since thrown fuel on the flames by declaring on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???'


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
US billionaire John Textor sells stake in bid save Crystal Palace's European status
John Textor has sold his stake in Crystal Palace in a bid to meet Uefa 's rules and ensure the club's participation in the Europa League next season. The US billionaire has sold his 42.9 per cent stake to controversial tycoon Woody Johnson for around £200m, subject to approval from the Premier League. This should clear the path for Palace to keep their place in Europe next term, satisfying Uefa that the FA Cup winners are not in breach of multi-club ownership rules. The Independent understands that an official verdict from the European football governing body is expected in the coming days. The Eagles' first voyage into continental football was under threat due to Textor's position at the club, due to the fact he also owns a 77 per cent stake in Ligue 1 outfit Lyon - who akin to Palace are competing in next season's Europa League. To prevent collusion, Uefa does not allow multiple clubs under the same owner to compete in one of its competitions, and in the case that two teams under a multi-club model qualify for the same tournament, the side that achieved the better finish in its domestic season gets priority. Lyon finished sixth last term and qualified via their league position, while Palace finished 12th. Palace's failure to adapt their shareholdings structure prior to the Uefa deadline of March 1 meant they were in breach of competition guidelines and could have been expelled from the Europa League. Palace argued that their historic FA Cup triumph and subsequent Europa League qualification were achieved on their own merit rather than via the benefits of a multi-club system, and that the response to eject them from the competition would be disproportionate. They also refuted that they operate under such a multi-club model - something Nottingham Forest wrote to Uefa to express concerns about - with Textor previously holding just 25 per cent of the voting rights. It appears the club have now addressed the issue, with contentious New York Jets owner acquiring Textor's stake. The Jets faced scrutiny last year after reports of 'controversial and dysfunctional practices' under his watch. Textor's sale means the businessman is fully out of the Palace picture, losing all influence previously had at the club.


STV News
23 minutes ago
- STV News
Trump says he is open to regime change in Iran
President Donald Trump has called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy, seemingly contradicting his administration's earlier calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!' The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from defence secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing on three of the country's nuclear sites. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Hegseth said. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned on Fox News that any retaliation against the US or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk'. Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the US has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear programme it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Hegseth had said that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings, which could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. PA Media Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Sunday (Alex Brandon/AP). Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Republican Congress member Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' Mr Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. General Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' he said. PA Media An electronic billboard beams an image of president Donald Trump alongside the message 'Thank you, Mr. President' referring to the US involvement in the war between Israel and Iran (Bernat Armangue/AP). Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform that Iran's nuclear sites sustained 'monumental damage' in the American attack, although a US assessment on the strikes is still underway and Iran has not said how much damage was done in the attack. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. Israeli army spokesman Effie Defrin said: 'the damage is deep,' but an assessment with the US continued. 'We are very close to achieving our goals' in removing Iran's nuclear and missile threats, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late on Sunday. The Israeli military confirmed other attacks late on Sunday, which included strikes on Hamedan and Kermanshah in western Iran, as well as strikes in Tehran, Iran's capital. Israel also hit what its military described as a missile production site in Shahroud. Iranian state media reported air defence systems were firing in Tehran early on Monday, while explosions could be heard in the nearby city of Karaj. A social media account associated with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, published a propaganda post on Monday portraying missile strikes on a darkened city with a giant skull bearing the Star of David on it. 'The punishment continues,' the poster read. PA Media Protesters carry signs during a protest in New York on Sunday against US strikes on Iran (Olga Fedorova/AP). Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 950 people and wounded 3,450 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 380 civilians and 253 security force personnel. In Israel, at least 24 people have been killed and more than 1,000 wounded. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level'. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Mr Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Sultan of Oman. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong told Channel Nine news that her government endorsed the strikes, but said 'ultimately we want to see de-escalation and diplomacy'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country