logo
Trump wants one thing from the NATO summit. Europe is going to give it to him.

Trump wants one thing from the NATO summit. Europe is going to give it to him.

Politico4 hours ago

President Donald Trump wants one big thing from next week's NATO leader's summit — and European leaders are itching to give it to him. That doesn't guarantee the president will be satisfied.
The 32-nation transatlantic military alliance will pledge to dramatically increase spending on defense to 5 percent of gross domestic product — 3.5 percent on hard military expenditures and 1.5 percent on more loosely defined defense-related efforts. The commitment, a watershed moment that could rebalance transatlantic security, will allow Trump, who's been demanding Europe pick up more of the burden for its own defense, a significant victory on the world stage.
'There is no way they would be going to 5 percent without Trump,' said one administration official, who was granted anonymity to share the president's views. 'So he sees this as a major win, and it is.'
Trump intends to deliver a speech Wednesday at the summit's conclusion heralding the new spending pledge and his own catalytic role. But Trump's victory won't prevent him from pressuring countries to do even more, faster, which could prove difficult for some in the alliance. Spain, the NATO member with the lowest defense spending rate, isasking for an exemption from the new pledge and there is broad disagreement over the date by which this spending pledge is to be met.
'They're thinking of a timeline that is, frankly, a decade,' said Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama. 'Trump is probably thinking of a timeline that is by the end of this decade, if not sooner. That's where I think [the summit] can blow up.'
While NATO allies are at odds over the details of the security pledge, there is broad agreement about the overriding importance of keeping Trump happy and maintaining a united front in The Hague, with Russia's war in Ukraine nowhere near an end and America's foreign policy focus increasingly shifting to Asia and the Middle East. In service of that aim, summit organizers have streamlined the meeting, reducing what is typically a two-day affair to 24 hours and focusing it around Trump's pledge, which has been negotiated ahead of time, and almost nothing else.
'He has to get credit for the 5 percent — that's why we're having the summit,' said one European defense official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about private government-level conversations. 'Everything else is being streamlined to minimize risk.'
Asked about the pledge on Friday, Trump expressed support for allies spending more but added the 5 percent target shouldn't apply to the U.S., which is at 3.4 percent.
Trump's saber-rattling toward Iran,teasing the possibility that the U.S. would join Israel's military campaign to destroy the country's nuclear development infrastructure and potentially topple the regime, has injected new uncertainty into a summit NATO officials had hoped to tightly script. But as of Friday, there were no formal plans to meet with allies to discuss the situation in the Middle East, though it could provide an opportunity for the president to tout the need for increased defense spending.
NATO officials decided to pare down the agenda before Trump abruptly left the G7 halfway through the two-day program, a move that the administration official later attributed largely to his impatience with largely ceremonial multilateral meetings. In The Hague, as was the case in Canada, there will be no lengthy communique, only short statements about new commitments. The shortened NATO schedule allows for only two main events: a welcome dinner at the Dutch royal family's castle and a single meeting of the North Atlantic Council rather than the usual two or three, according to five people familiar with the planning.
It is not clear if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, invited only to the summit's opening dinner on Tuesday, will attend. And there won't be a meeting of NATO's Ukraine council in The Hague. It's another concession to the U.S., which, despite the urging of some allies to hold such a session, wasn't interested in heightening the focus on the war that Trump has been unable to resolve as he promised during last year's campaign.
Paring down the summit is also a way for NATO allies to gloss over the persistent divide among countries about a critical detail of their pledge: how soon they'll be expected to reach the new spending benchmark. While the U.S. — and countries in eastern Europe already above the 3.5 percent benchmark — prefer a deadline of 2030, smaller countries, struggling to reach the new goals, want until 2032 or 2035.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte floated 2032 as a compromise but, amid pushback from several smaller countries in recent days, the final wording of the pledge could give countries until 2035 to hit 5 percent, according to a European official familiar with private negotiations.
'For a lot of countries, this is the whole issue,' the European defense official continued. 'It's not so difficult to say, 'Yes, we will, we will agree.' But it's very difficult to find the right path and to actually find the budget for that path. So that's why nobody, nobody wants to talk about it anymore.'
It's possible that the matter of the timeline won't be resolved during the summit.
'The priority is really to announce success in The Hague,' said another European official, also granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. 'The longer-term perspective is less important.'
NATO officials and European allies are determined to avoid a repeat of the 2018 summit in Brussels, which Trump upended by threatening to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance altogether if other countries didn't get serious about reaching the 2 percent spending benchmark they'd agreed to four years earlier. More than anything since, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 altered defense calculations for Europe, pushing several countries to meet the 2 percent threshold and prompting Sweden and Finland, after decades of neutrality, to join the alliance.
With the war ongoing and Trump back in office, the increased spending commitments are at least as much about Europe's long-term defense as they are appeasing the unpredictable Trump. In his speech this week at London's Chatham House, Rutte began to publicly lay out NATO's new capability targets — the amount of military equipment needed to implement a defense plan against a potential Russian attack — that defense ministers agreed to earlier this month.
The alliance, Rutte said, needs 'a 400 percent increase in air and missile defence … thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support.'
Over time, that will lead to Europe carrying more of the burden for its own defense — and having more sway within the alliance.
'You now have a road map for Europeanizing NATO that you never had before, and that ultimately will lead to a more successful alliance,' Daalder said. 'Everybody wants to move in that direction, the U.S. and the Europeans.'
Trump has long groused that the U.S. shoulders too much of the cost for defending the world and has pushed more than just NATO members to increase their defense budgets. The administration is also pressuring Japan, a non-NATO ally pursuing a new trade deal with Washington, to boost its defense spending significantly with the Pentagon describing the 5 percent benchmark as a new 'global standard.'
It's a standard many countries may struggle to reach. Spain, far from the alliance's eastern flank, has been difficult to convince, as have other smaller countries such as Italy and Belgium that are still not hitting the 2 percent level the alliance adopted in 2014.
Even Great Britain, one of Europe's biggest military powers, has balked at the 2032 deadline. Laying out a plan for boosting defense spending, Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised the U.K. would be at 2.5 percent by 2027 and expressed confidence about getting to 3 percent by 2034, at the latest.
Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out
Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out

Forbes

time38 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out

CHARLEVOIX, CANADA - JUNE 9: In this photo provided by the German Government Press Office (BPA), ... More German Chancellor Angela Merkel deliberates with US president Donald Trump on the sidelines of the official agenda on the second day of the G7 summit on June 9, 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada. Also pictured are (L-R) Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, Theresa May, UK prime minister, Emmanuel Macron, French president, Angela Merkel, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, Japan prime minister, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs, John Bolton, US national security adviser, and Donald Trump. Canada are hosting the leaders of the UK, Italy, the US, France, Germany and Japan for the two day summit. (Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images) London Climate Action Week is set to start, showcasing what urgent, inclusive climate action looks like when cities, financiers, and citizens unite. But the energy and innovation on display in London are being overshadowed by growing inaction from global leaders. Just days after the G7 failed to deliver any meaningful policy progress, and as the EU backpedals on its green regulation agenda, a troubling gap is emerging between local ambition and failures of international leadership. This retreat is happening at the worst possible moment. Climate damage costs are skyrocketing, climate science is sounding red alerts, and economic evidence points to a clear win: green investment can grow economies, create jobs, and protect communities. The world's most powerful leaders are not just missing an opportunity, they are magnifying a crisis. To grasp its scale, we need to look at the growing economic cost of inaction. The Price Of Delay And The Need For Leadership Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that in the year to May 2025, the U.S. incurred close to $1 trillion (or around 3% of GDP) in direct climate-related costs from floods, wildfires, infrastructure damage, and insurance losses. Globally, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme weather are disrupting supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining financial stability. Insurers have seen annual catastrophe losses surge tenfold since the 1980s. Premiums have skyrocketed, and coverage has shrunk, especially in wildfire and storm prone regions, exacerbating economic disruption and housing unaffordability. At the same time, the European Union appears to be shelving the Green Claims Directive, retreating under political pressure precisely when markets are demanding clear, consistent regulation to guide sustainable investment. This uncertainty discourages capital and undermines momentum. These setbacks comes as the OECD's 2025 Green Growth report shows that climate action could unlock $7.4 trillion per year in investment and job creation if scaled by 2030. Yet rather than harnessing this opportunity, many leaders are hesitating. Nowhere is this hesitancy more evident than in the recent action, or inaction, of the G7, whose decisions ripple far beyond their border G7 Paralysis And The Global Ripple Effect The G7's latest Chair's Summary reaffirms familiar goals, like limiting warming to 1.5°C but offered no timelines, targets, or tools to achieve it. 'Once again, the G7 chose safe, business-as-usual declarations over the bold, future-proof action we urgently need,' said Daniela Fernandez, CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance. 'The G7's latest climate commitments reflect a deeper issue,' added Ibrahim AlHusseini, managing partner of climate investor FullCycle. 'Global leaders are increasingly distracted by immediate geopolitical crises, and climate, still perceived as a medium to long-term risk, has slipped down the agenda. But this is a dangerous miscalculation.' He added: 'Delay is not neutral, it's an accelerant of future instability,' with direct consequences for supply chains, migration, and global financial systems. And it's not just experts calling for change. According to the 2024 People's Climate Vote, 80% of people globally want their countries to strengthen climate commitments, and over two-thirds support a fast transition from fossil fuels. Other surveys echoes this: 89% of people across 125 countries support stronger government action, yet many mistakenly believe they are in the minority. This public mandate for bold climate action stands in sharp contrast to the political hesitancy now on display. As political will may be stalling, another sector is responding. What was once viewed as an environmental issue is now a pressing financial risk. Climate Risk Becomes Financial Risk Inaction is not just costly, it is destabilizing. The financial consequences are already unfolding across insurance markets and beyond. "We have already seen residential and commercial insurance premiums rise and availability drop in recent years, in response to growing insurer losses," warns Tom Sabetelli-Goodyer, vice-president of climate risk at FIS. They are early signs of a broader, systemic threat. As climate impacts intensify, they are cascading through the financial system, affecting asset valuations, credit risk, and the stability of entire markets. Regulators around the world have begun to integrate climate risk into their frameworks, but last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the global standard-setter for financial regulation, added its voice with a new framework for the voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. While non-binding, the guidance marks a significant step and reinforces a clear message: climate risk is no longer just environmental, it's financial. As Julia Symon, head of research and advocacy at Finance Watch put it: 'Without clear, consistent data, supervisors are flying blind, unaware of the real risks building up on balance sheets.' The Climate Clock Is Ticking Scientific indicators confirm the urgency and the danger of delay. The 2024 Indicators of Global Climate Change report shows that the average global temperature from 2015 to 2024 reached 1.24°C above pre-industrial levels, with human activity responsible for nearly all of it. In 2024 alone, global temperatures spiked to 1.52°C, temporarily crossing the critical 1.5°C threshold. More troubling still, human-induced warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate of 0.27°C per decade, the fastest rate ever recorded. At current emissions levels, the remaining carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C could be fully exhausted within just two to five years, depending on assumptions. Scientists also point to a growing Earth energy imbalance and early signs of amplifying climate feedback loops, such as ocean heat uptake and ice melt, which could further lock in extreme changes. The window for keeping global heating within safe limits is narrowing quickly. Yet even as time runs short, the economic case for prompt action continues to strengthen. Green growth offers a rare convergence of climate responsibility and financial return. Green Growth: A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity The OECD Green Growth report emphasizes that investing in clean energy and green infrastructure is not just responsible, its smart economics. Clean energy investment now outpaces fossil fuels, and 90% of global GDP is covered by net-zero targets. The report outlines how aligning financial systems with climate goals could unlock $7.4 trillion annually in investment by 2030. 'Green growth is an approach that seeks to harmonize economic growth with environmental sustainability and helps to deliver broader development benefits,' explains Jennifer Baumwoll, head of climate strategies and policy at UNDP. Far from hindering development, the green transition can generate resilient jobs, improve productivity, and enhance long-term competitiveness. In short, the report argues that climate action is not a cost but a catalyst for growth. Countries like Mongolia and Lao PDR are already demonstrating what this looks like in practice. In Mongolia, a green finance strategy, backed by the Central Bank and a new SDG-aligned taxonomy, has mobilized $120 million in climate-aligned investment, including the country's first green bond. Green lending is targeted to grow from 2% to 10% of all bank lending by 2030. Meanwhile, Lao PDR is advancing a national circular economy roadmap to reduce waste and resource use while unlocking economic opportunity. If fully implemented, it could create 1.6 million jobs and add $16 billion to GDP by 2050. These pragmatic, investment-ready models of climate action deliver real development gains. Their progress underscores a growing global divide: while emerging economies embrace opportunity, many developed nations are falling behind, precisely when their leadership is most needed. A Shrinking Window And Defining Test Of Leadership 2025 marks a critical juncture. Countries are expected to submit new national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) ahead of COP30 in Belém this November. Yet as of late June 2025, four months after the February deadline, only a small fraction had done so. Intended to reflect increased ambition following the Global Stocktake, most submissions remain overdue, and the ambition gap continues to widen. The UN expects a surge of last-minute filings, but tardiness isn't the only concern. Most existing plans fall short of aligning with the 1.5°C target, and the policy frameworks to deliver them at scale are still lacking. The challenge is not technical though but political. Instead of advancing, many major economies are retreating, weakening targets, delaying regulations, and rolling back commitments just as the case for bold action becomes stronger. Evidence shows that a well-managed transition can boost growth, reduce inequality, and build resilience. Yet that potential is being squandered. What's needed now is not just political courage, but real leadership, capable of driving structural reform and aligning finance with planetary boundaries. Decisive action today isn't only about avoiding catastrophe, it's about exercising leadership that can shape a more stable, equitable, and liveable world. The responsibility lies with those in power to act—not later, but now.

MAGA courts the next generation of conservatives
MAGA courts the next generation of conservatives

Axios

time38 minutes ago

  • Axios

MAGA courts the next generation of conservatives

Amid rising loneliness, economic anxiety and frustrations with the left, a growing share of Gen Z-ers are turning right. The big picture: The next generation of conservatives are in small towns and big cities, on college campuses and TikTok — and they're minting a new youth culture. "It's part of this shift among Gen Z post-Covid," says Rachel Janfaza, a youth political analyst."They got really tired of being told what they could or could not do and what they could or could not say." Stunning stat: Nowhere in the world are young men as lonely in comparison to other people in their country as they are in the U.S., per a recent Gallup poll. One in four U.S. men ages 15 to 34 said they felt lonely a lot of the previous day — a higher proportion than young American women (18%) and young men in other wealthy democracies. Economic anxiety is rampant. "More people who are Gen Zers, more men, than we might appreciate … aspire to a life that is not dissimilar, necessarily, from their parents and their grandparents in terms of the basic opportunity to meet someone, to fall in love, to create a life, have a family, have a home," says Harvard pollster John Della Volpe. "Each one of those things I just mentioned is probably more challenging today." In the middle of the chaos, many young men are courted by the right and feel alienated by the left. For a generation worried that typical milestones — like getting a job, finding a partner and buying a house — are out of reach, President Trump's campaign resonated. "I do think that what Republicans managed to communicate is, 'We like men, and we like the things men like,' whether that's UFC or whatever. And sometimes in politics, making people feel like you like them is kind of important," says Richard Reeves of the American Institute for Boys and Men. "Democrats didn't do any of those things. They didn't say 'we like you, we like the things you like.' In fact, sometimes there's even tendencies to say, 'We don't like the things you like, and we're not sure we like you.'" Case in point: Aidan Thompson, a 21-year-old undergraduate at Kansas, says he feels Democrats' message is that "the things that make men who they are are inherently evil" But Trump "seems like he's a billionaire that's just an American, like, he goes to UFC, he eats McDonald's, he watches wrestling and NASCAR, he knows tons of stuff about baseball," Thompson said. "He gets shot, and he immediately gets up and he holds up his fist like 'you can't kill me.' That's just so freaking awesome." Zoom out: Although there are more men than women in the conservative youth movement, plenty of young women are part of it too. By the numbers: 41% of 18- to 29-year-old women voted for President Trump in 2024, compared with 33% in 2020, per Tufts' Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The intrigue: Many young men and women share similar frustrations with the Democratic Party — including gripes with political correctness and a sense that the left looks down on traditional gender roles. "The left has become the party of hall monitors, telling me no and giving me lectures," says Raquel Debono, an influencer and founder of "Make America Hot Again," a community of young conservatives in New York City. "There are a lot more conservative men than women. But people have neglected to mention that we've seen the counterculture rise from the feminist wave," she says. "Women want to feel like women again." Zoom in: This month, Turning Point USA's Young Women's Leadership Summit brought together thousands of conservative women in their teens and twenties. A common theme among speakers and attendees was that women should forego higher education and focus on becoming homemakers and mothers, The Cut's E.J. Dickson reports. "Feminism told women to chase their corporate dreams for their validation while their kids were eating seed oils and their marriages were collapsing," Alex Clark, a conservative influencer and one of the speakers at the event, said on stage. "Well, we're done pretending that a cubicle is more empowering than a countertop." Reality check: This brand of conservatism isn't the only option, Debono says. "What I don't like about the messaging on the right is that so much of the right has convinced young women that they have to give all of these things up to be a conservative woman," she says. Debono says she looks to working moms in Trump's administration, like press secretary Karoline Leavitt, as evidence that the "trad wife" model isn't the only way to be a woman on the right.

Trump says he's close to striking a deal with Harvard
Trump says he's close to striking a deal with Harvard

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he's close to striking a deal with Harvard

WASHINGTON – In an abrupt shift, President Donald Trump has signaled that his monthslong pressure campaign against Harvard University could be nearing an end. In a social media post on June 20, he said his administration is "working closely" with Harvard officials, who have "acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "It is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so," Trump said. He used the term "Settlement" when describing a potential resolution, appearing to indicate the detente could sort out Harvard's pending lawsuits against the federal government. Trump's comments follow a string of legal wins for Harvard's leaders, who vowed in April to fight back against what many onlookers in higher education have described as unprecedented interference by the federal government in a campus's affairs. Read more: Trump-Harvard clash heats up. Here's what to know. The Trump administration has frozen billions of dollars of Harvard's federal funding, launched a review of the school's tax-exempt status and attempted to prevent the university from enrolling international students, who make up a third of its student population. The White House says it has taken those actions in large part to force Harvard to better curb antisemitism on campus. Critics say that rationale doesn't reflect the massive changes in hiring, teaching and admissions the administration has tried to impose on the Ivy League school. Read more: Trump administration: international students will face strict social media review Mere hours after the university filed a new lawsuit against Trump in June, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs blocked the federal government from preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Burroughs extended that ban indefinitely on June 20 while litigation between the White House and Harvard continues. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump says a deal with Harvard could come soon

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store