President Donald Trump faces an alliance shaped to his liking as he attends the NATO summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — U.S. President Donald Trump huddled on Wednesday with members of a NATO alliance that he has worked to bend to his will over the years and whose members are rattled by his latest comments casting doubt on the U.S. commitment to its mutual defense guarantees.
Trump's comments en route to the Netherlands that his fidelity to Article 5 'depends on your definition' drew attention at the NATO summit, as will the new and fragile Iran-Israel ceasefire that the Republican president helped broker after the U.S. unloaded airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
At the same time, the alliance is poised to enact one of Trump's chief priorities: a pledge by NATO member countries to increase, sometimes significantly, how much they spend on their defense.
'I've been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years,' Trump said Wednesday as he met with Mark Rutte, the alliance's secretary-general. 'I think that's going to be very big news.'
The boost in spending follows years of Trump's complaints that other countries weren't paying their fair share for membership in an alliance created as a bulwark against threats from the former Soviet Union. Most NATO countries, with the key exception of Spain, are preparing to endorse the 5% pledge, motivated to bolster their own defenses not just by Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine but also, perhaps, to placate Trump.
As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that as president he would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantees outlined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty. In March of this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed, though the alliance did just that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
On Tuesday, he told reporters aboard Air Force One on his way to The Hague for the summit that whether he is committed to Article 5 'depends on your definition.'
'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' Trump said. 'But I'm committed to being their friends.' He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he was at the summit.
New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, who traveled to The Hague and met with several foreign leaders at the summit, said other countries raised 'understandable questions' about the U.S. commitment to the alliance, 'certainly given President Trump's past statements.'
'We were very strong and reassuring everyone that we are committed to NATO, we are committed to Article 5, we are committed to maintaining troops on the Eastern flank,' said Shaheen, who represented the U.S. Senate with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware.
Trump also vented to reporters before leaving Washington about the actions by Israel and Iran after his announced ceasefire — although on Monday, he said the ceasefire was 'very good.'
After Trump arrived in the Netherlands, news outlets, including The Associated Press, reported that a U.S. intelligence report suggested in an early assessment that Iran's nuclear program had been set back only a few months by weekend strikes and was not 'completely and fully obliterated,' as Trump had said.
But on Wednesday morning, Trump and other senior Cabinet officials vigorously pushed back on the assessment, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration was launching an investigation into who disclosed those findings to reporters.
'That hit ended the war,' Trump said. Drawing comparisons to the atomic bombings from the U.S. during World War II, he added: 'I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war.'
The White House has not said which other world leaders Trump would meet with one on one while in The Hague, but Trump said during his meeting with Rutte that he will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy later Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Graham overrides Paul's border wall, immigration enforcement proposal
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has unveiled a plan to override Homeland Security Committee Chair Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) proposal to fund border security and immigration enforcement activities at roughly half the amount favored by Senate and House Republican leaders. Paul created an uproar two weeks ago when he unveiled his portion of the Trump agenda megabill that would spend $6.5 billion on completing President Trump's border wall and $22.5 billion on expanding detention facilities for migrants. Now Graham has answered with a move of his own, unveiling a proposal to restore funding for the border wall and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the full amount envisioned by GOP leaders when they passed a blueprint for the bill earlier this year. 'As Budget Chairman, I will do my best to ensure that the President's border security plan is fully funded because I believe it has been fully justified,' Graham said in a statement accompanying the release of his legislative text. 'The president promised to secure our border. His plan fulfills that promise. The Senate must do our part and past his bill,' he said. Graham would provide Customs and Border Patrol $46.5 billion to build the border wall and related infrastructure such as access roads, cameras, lights and sensors. Paul, by contrast, provided $6.5 billion for completion of the wall, telling colleagues that's the amount that Customs and Border Patrol estimated on its website the construction would cost. 'The wall, if you look at the [Customs and Border Protection] website — until they removed it yesterday — they said it would cost $6.5 million per mile' to build the border wall, Paul told reporters earlier this month. 'If you add that up for about 1,000 miles that's $6.5 billion. They asked for $46.5 billion so they got a math problem,' he added. 'Instead of addressing the math problem, CBP took that off their website two days ago.' Graham's 'updated Senate Homeland Security Title' would also provide $45 billion for the detention of aliens ICE has taken into custody. That's substantially more than the $22.5 billion that Paul's legislative text allocated for expanding detention capacity.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Senate Tax Bill Preserves SALT Workaround For Traders And SSTBs
The Senate takes a more balanced approach to SALT and PTET rules—avoiding punitive carveouts and restoring deductions for traders and service professionals. Senate Rejects House's PTET Ban on Traders Senate Republicans released a draft tax reform bill on June 16 that sharply diverges from the House's approach to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and the pass-through entity tax (PTET). Unlike the House version, which aggressively targets specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs), the Senate draft restores PTET deductions for all pass-throughs—offering welcome relief to traders, CPAs, and other professionals. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), set to expire after 2025, capped the SALT itemized deduction at $10,000 per year. In response, 37 states enacted PTET regimes allowing pass-through entities to deduct state taxes at the entity level—effectively bypassing the SALT cap for eligible business owners. The House bill proposes raising the SALT cap to $40,000 with income-based phaseouts and denies PTET deductions to SSTBs. By contrast, the Senate draft keeps the SALT cap at $10,000 as a placeholder, signaling ongoing negotiations. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo and many Republicans oppose raising the cap, with some advocating for its complete elimination. In a notable departure from the House bill, the Senate version eliminates SSTB exclusions. Instead, it applies a uniform PTET limitation: the greater of $50,000 or 50% of the eligible PTET deduction, regardless of industry. While more restrictive than current law—which in many states allows near-total deduction—this framework avoids discriminatory carveouts against service professionals. Traders operating in PTET-eligible entities and qualifying for trader tax status (TTS) would retain access to this key deduction under the Senate proposal. However, sole proprietors, employees, and investment companies not eligible for TTS remain excluded. The Senate Finance Committee's draft remains under discussion, with a floor vote anticipated as early as late June. If the Senate passes the bill, it will proceed to House-Senate reconciliation. The final outcome will determine whether PTET parity and SALT deduction relief endure in the finalized legislation. As many taxpayers discovered under the TCJA, SALT cap limitations have been a major driver of increased federal tax bills—especially in high-tax states. The Senate proposal takes a more balanced approach, extending PTET relief without penalizing service professionals. GreenTraderTax will continue monitoring developments and advise traders and professionals on year-end planning implications. Darren Neuschwander, CPA, contributed to this article.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over funding cuts
A group of 21 Democratic-led states filed a Tuesday lawsuit against the Trump administration for arbitrarily cutting grants allegedly misaligned with an agency's goals. Plaintiffs, which include New York, Illinois and California, said federal agencies have taken on a nationwide 'slash-and-burn campaign' to unlawfully revoke previously awarded funds through a subclause in federal regulations. States' attorneys general allege a clause permitting federal agencies to terminate grants 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' is being misused by the Trump administration. The states said congressionally mandated funds cannot be 'stripped away' to punish jurisdictions that enforce policies disliked by the current administration. States with sanctuary cities, research projects related to environmental protection standards and other measures have lost federal dollars in recent months. 'With the stroke of a pen, federal agencies have deprived States of critical funding they rely on to combat violent crime and protect public safety, equip law enforcement, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct life-saving medical and scientific research, address food insecurity experienced by students in school, ensure access to unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and much more,' plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit. 'Federal agencies have done all of this without any advance notice, without any explanation to the State recipients, and in direct contravention of the will of Congress,' they added. 'The State recipients' sole offense has been that they used the grant funding precisely how they had promised in the grant applications—and as they were instructed by the agencies at the time of the grant award.' 'Leftist AGs and governors who would rather spend their days drafting toothless letters in an attempt to 'stick it to Trump' continue to miss the mark while failing to address real issues impacting their states,' White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told The Hill. 'Every one of these elected officials should focus on serving their constituents, not their party bosses, and work with the President and this administration to enact the agenda the American people overwhelmingly supported.' The lawsuit follows a federal judge's Thursday ruling rejecting the Department of Transportation's attempts to tie state funding to immigration enforcement operations.
