NATO summit yields a big win on defense spending for Trump but key questions over the alliance remain
NATO leaders convening Wednesday in the Netherlands were prepared to offer President Donald Trump a major win by boosting their defense spending targets.
But comments he made while flying to the conference were raising fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance's core principal of collective defense.
The split dynamic — where leaders tailored their gathering to appeal to Trump, even as he questions the core provision of membership — made for a charged atmosphere as the conference was getting underway at The Hague.
Trump, who spent the night at a Dutch royal palace after flying from Washington, was set to attend the summit's sole plenary session before meeting on the sidelines with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and holding a press conference.
He'll spend fewer than 24 hours in the Netherlands, an intentionally truncated visit that NATO leaders designed specially to keep Trump's attention and ensure he didn't have time to blow up the intended display of unity.
The central outcome of the summit — a pledge by members to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP in a decade, up from the current target of 2% — is exactly what Trump has been demanding over the past several years.
The final communiqué in which the spending target will be affirmed will be dramatically shortened, omitting any controversial language that might spark resistance from the United States.
And while Ukraine and its president are still on the agenda, the country's war with Russia will take a far less prominent place than in NATO summits past, a sign of the differences emerging between Europe and Trump over how to resolve the conflict.
NATO chief Mark Rutte, whose relationship with Trump extends back to his years as Dutch prime minister, elected to place the spending targets at the center of the summit and made sure to credit Trump for making it happen in a private message that Trump later posted on social media.
'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote, before wishing the US president a safe journey to the Netherlands.
The fawning tone prompted some private eyebrow raising among European officials, but Rutte denied any discomfort when a reporter asked Wednesday whether the episode wasn't a little embarrassing.
'Absolutely not,' he said. 'What is in that text message is a statement of fact and I'm totally fine that he shared.'
As it turned out, Trump didn't actually have to be at the NATO summit in order to raise fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance, which he's not been shy about criticizing in the past.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump stopped well short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the alliance's cornerstone Article 5 pledge of collective defense.
'It depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5,' Trump said when asked about his commitment to the pledge, before adding: 'I'm committed to being their friends and I'm committed to helping them.'
It was not quite the show of support many European leaders had hoped for, though few officials voiced surprise at Trump's comments as the summit was getting underway.
For his part, Rutte said he was unconcerned about Trump's NATO commitment.
'For me there is absolute clarity that the United States is totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article 5, and yes, there is also an expectation — that will be fulfilled today — that the Canadians and Europeans will speed up their spending,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Photos show the aftermath of airstrikes in Israel and Iran after 12 days of war
Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on Tuesday after 12 days of airstrikes and missile attacks. Israel targeted Iran's nuclear program, and the US dropped bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities. Photos show damaged sites in both Israel and Iran in the aftermath of the war. After 12 days of airstrikes, drones, and missile attacks, including US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites ordered by President Donald Trump, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire brokered by Trump on Tuesday. The " 12 Day War" began on June 13 when Israel launched a surprise attack it said was a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with a barrage of missiles and drones directed at Israel. In Israel, 28 people died and over 3,000 were injured, according to Israel's Health Ministry. Iranian state media reported that 627 people died and at least 4,870 were wounded in Iran. Whether the US and Israel succeeded in halting Iran's nuclear program remains unclear. The White House maintains that Iran's nuclear facilities were "obliterated," while a classified US intelligence assessment reported that the attacks may have only delayed Iran's developments by a few months. Photos show the aftermath of the war in Israel and Iran.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth goes on attack in Pentagon press briefing on Iran strikes
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday called a rare Pentagon press conference to defend the U.S. strikes on Iran and lambast the media's coverage of the effectiveness of the operation. Hegseth criticized 'fawning coverage' of early intelligence findings of the impact of Saturday's bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities – which suggested the strikes did not fully take out Tehran's nuclear program and only set it back by a few months. 'Whether it's fake news CNN, MSNBC or The New York Times, there's been fawning coverage of a preliminary assessment,' Hegseth said during a Pentagon press conference. 'It was preliminary – a day and a half after the actual strike – when it admits itself in writing that it requires weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make such an assessment.' 'There's low confidence in this particular report,' he added. The Trump administration has pushed back hard at a Defense Intelligence Agency summary that has seemed to refute President Trump's repeated insistence that Iran's nuclear program has been 'obliterated' and set back by years. Trump on Wednesday disputed the report's findings, calling them incomplete and saying officials were merely guessing. The DIA findings, initially reported by The New York Times and CNN on Tuesday, found the bombing failed to collapse the deep underground buildings of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment plant and the Natanz Enrichment Complex and likely did not destroy much of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, as it was moved before the bombing. The 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs dropped on Fordow and Natanz — as well as armaments that struck at Iran's Isfahan nuclear site – did significantly damage aboveground structures but left the sites' centrifuges still 'intact,' according to the assessment. But Hegseth on Thursday framed the reporting as an attack on the American warfighter and Trump, insisting the president 'created the conditions to end the war, decimating – choose your word – obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.' He also claimed the DIA report was revealed as 'someone had an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn't successful.' 'I hope, with all the ink spilled, all of your outlets find the time to properly recognize this historic change in continental security that other presidents tried to do, other presidents talked about,' Hegseth said. 'President Trump accomplished it. It's a huge deal.' The Pentagon chief leaned heavily on recent statements released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe in seeking to dismiss the DIA assessment. Ratcliffe a day prior on Wednesday stated that Iran's nuclear program 'has been severely damaged' and specific facilities 'were destroyed,' while Gabbard referred to 'new intelligence' that confirmed Trump's assertion that 'Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed.' Hegseth also refuted claims that enriched uranium was moved from the Iranian facilities prior to the strike. 'I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be – moved or otherwise,' Hegseth said when asked about the enriched uranium stockpiles. Trump has also pushed back hard at the idea the strikes did not destroy the uranium stockpile, insisting on Truth Social on Thursday – directly after Hegseth wrapped up the press conference – that 'Nothing was taken out of facility. Would take too long, too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move.' Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, who appeared alongside Hegseth, said Sunday that initial battle damage assessments indicated the sites 'sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' but that a full assessment would take time. Asked about the previous comments and whether he would also describe the sites as 'obliterated,' Caine said the Joint Chiefs 'don't do' battle damage assessments or 'grade its own homework,' referring questions to the intelligence community. 'The IC should be able to help you answer that question,' Caine said. 'They look at a variety, as the secretary has alluded to, they look at a variety of things. I don't do that. They do all, all different sources of intel, which I'd refer you to them to get clarity.'
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with South Carolina in effort to cut Planned Parenthood funding
lk WASHINGTON − An ideologically divided Supreme Court on June 26 sided with South Carolina in its effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, a decision that is likely to prompt other GOP-led states to take similar action against a health care organization under attack for providing abortion services. The court's ruling -- over the dissent of the three liberal justices -- that Medicaid patients can't sue over their right to choose their doctor could also limit care options beyond the controversial realm of reproductive care. The Trump administration had backed South Carolina, after the Justice Department reevaluated its position following the change in administrations. And anti-abortion groups are pushing Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress to impose a national ban on Planned Parenthood's participation in Medicaid. The organization has said that would have "catastrophic consequences," potentially causing the closure of nearly 200 health centers in 24 states including half the centers that provide abortions. One third of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from state and federal government funding, including Medicaid, to provide health services, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Defunding Planned Parenthood is longtime GOP goal Republicans have long sought to defund Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. Medicaid, which is funded primarily through federal dollars and operated by states to provide health carefor low-income residents, already prohibits coverage of abortion in most cases. But South Carolina argues that the money Planned Parenthood gets from the government for providing birth control, cancer screenings, physical exams, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and other health services 'frees up their other funds to provide more abortions.' The state's Republican governor, Henry McMaster, signed an executive order in 2018 to cut off Medicaid funding. His order was blocked in court. That was before the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, prompting South Carolina to ban abortions after the fetus reachesaround six weeks' gestation. Lower court blocked South Carolina from defunding Planned Parenthood Nearly half of Planned Parenthood patients nationwide get their health care through Medicaid, although that share is lower in South Carolina, which has tighter eligibility rules than most states, according to the organization. The federal Medicaid Act says eligible people may receive health care 'from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.' The Supreme Court was asked to review a lower court's decision that the language clearly allows a Medicaid patient to sue if a state blocks a qualified provider from the program. In this case, the patient was Julie Edwards, a Medicaid recipient whoprefers to go to Planned Parenthood for her reproductive health care because they treat her 'without judgment.' Edwards also said she's had trouble finding doctors willing to see Medicaid recipients. South Carolina says Medicaid patients have many other options, including 140 federally qualified health clinics and pregnancy centers. But the American Public Health Association and other health groups told the court more than half of South Carolina's counties don't have enough health services to meet demand and nearly 2 in 5 are considered 'contraceptive deserts.' Planned Parenthood 'fills the gaps where South Carolina's providers are scarcest ‒ women's health and preventative care ‒ lessening the burden on other parts of the state's healthcare system,' various health care policy experts, advocates and providers in South Carolina told the Supreme Court. Without Medicaid reimbursements, the organization maynot be able to continuedelivering services 'in the same manner we have been' and may need to reduce hours at its South Carolina clinics, the organization said in a filing. But Dr. Katherine Farris, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said before Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was argued that, regardless of the outcome, their 'doors will stay open.'
