Trump raises the question of demanding NATO member countries to allocate 5% of their GDP for defense spending.

Introduction - An Alliance or a Burden?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has functioned as a central pillar of international security since the end of World War II. Formed on the basis of a collective defense treaty, this alliance has maintained a structure where Western countries, led by the United States, uphold their security jointly. However, as time has passed, this 'shared burden' has started to show signs of cracks, and the gaps are becoming increasingly evident. On June 20, 2025, former US President Donald Trump stated in an interview that "NATO member countries should spend 5% of their GDP on defense," adding that "the United States should be an exception." This statement raises fundamental questions about the fairness and sustainability of the NATO framework and the role of the United States. The principle of 'collective defense' is being put to the test in the reality of 'shared costs.'

Development – Trump's Logic and America's Position

Former President Trump has consistently pointed out the excessive burden on the United States regarding NATO since his time in office. He emphasized that "we have already borne almost 100%" of the costs and criticized NATO allies for enjoying the benefits of security without paying their fair share. This aligns with his foreign policy mantra of "America First." In fact, the United States spends the most on defense among NATO countries, amounting to about 3.4% of its GDP. In monetary terms, the U.S. bears more than 70% of total NATO defense spending. However, Trump’s mention that "the U.S. does not need to adhere to the 5% rule" can be interpreted as an attempt to institutionalize exceptionalism within the alliance framework. This is consistent with a desire for the U.S. to reduce its burden of global leadership and shift more defense responsibilities onto its allies. This stance is also contentious within the U.S. Some Republican lawmakers argue that the U.S. should also expand its defense budget to the 5% level and maintain a tougher position. Ultimately, Trump's remarks may signal not just a simple adjustment of figures but a shift in the U.S. security strategy.

Reaction - The Divided Positions of European Allies

Trump's demand for a 5% increase has elicited mixed reactions from European countries. Spain strongly criticized it as "unrealistic and premature." Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez made it clear that a rapid increase in defense spending would be difficult to manage given Spain's political and financial conditions. Spain's defense spending remains at around 1.28% of GDP. In contrast, Eastern European countries reacted differently. Latvia, Poland, and Lithuania, which directly feel the threat from Russia, are already spending over 3% of their GDP on defense and aim to achieve 5% in the long term. NATO's new Secretary General Mark Rutte expressed an optimistic stance, stating that "the entire alliance can move toward the 5% goal," but significant differences remain in the economic power, political will, and perceptions of security threats among countries.

Analysis - The Dilemma of 'Fairness' and Geopolitical Pressure

The controversy over fairness within NATO is not a new issue. During the Wales summit in 2014, member states agreed to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP, but the number of countries actually meeting this commitment is still less than half. Trump interprets this situation as the 'United States being exploited,' advocating for a substantial redistribution of defense costs. However, a 5% GDP allocation would be an unprecedented figure in NATO's history, and achieving this in peacetime requires political legitimacy and public consent. Particularly for Western European countries that adopt a welfare state model, doubling defense spending is not simply a matter of budget adjustment, but poses a challenge that requires a structural shift in national finances. Moreover, Trump's exceptionalism risks undermining the trust-based foundation of NATO. If the United States wishes to diverge from the rules it set for itself, questions will inevitably arise regarding America's leadership as a 'fair partner' among allies. This could impact NATO's moral legitimacy and internal cohesion.

Conclusion - Asking Beyond Defense Costs

Trump's remarks are not simply a demand for an increase in defense spending. They declare that the United States no longer has the willingness to unconditionally maintain the existing alliance system and that countries must take on a more autonomous and responsible role regarding their own security. This is the most fundamental demand for reforming NATO since the end of the Cold War and may signal the beginning of a restructuring of global leadership. However, alliances are not mere contracts of interests. They are community-based promises founded on trust, mutual responsibility, and political solidarity. The future of NATO is not just a matter of how many percent of GDP should be allocated to defense spending, but rather an essential question of what values and philosophies we will uphold to sustain this alliance. Defense spending should not be a measure of the weight of an alliance, but a standard for questioning the very purpose of the alliance's existence. True alliances begin not with numbers, but with a spirit of mutual responsibility.