Trump claims win as NATO agrees massive spending hike
NATO countries agreed Wednesday to massively ramp up their defence spending to satisfy US President Donald Trump, who hailed it as a "monumental win" for America -- and reaffirmed his country's commitment to protect its European allies.
Trump cut a jubilant figure after NATO's 32 countries agreed to his headline target of five percent of GDP on defence spending following two days of talks in The Hague.
Taking credit for a "fantastic" outcome that "no one really thought possible", Trump described the spending hike as "a monumental win for the United States".
Trump also signed off on a final declaration confirming an "ironclad commitment" to NATO's collective defence pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all -- a reassuring move for European countries worried about Russia.
The US leader has repeatedly suggested Washington could withhold protection from European countries unwilling to spend more on defence.
The compromise hatched by NATO sees countries promise to dedicate 3.5 percent of GDP to core military spending by 2035, and a further 1.5 to broader security-related areas such as infrastructure.
Spain had been refusing to agree and while it signed the pledge it has said it thinks it can fulfil NATO's demands while spending less -- Trump threatening on Wednesday to hit its trade interests in response.
But the pledge endorsed in The Hague allows Trump to claim triumph, while in practice providing wiggle room for cash-strapped governments in Europe.
'Couldn't have been nicer'
Everything was choreographed at the gathering to keep the volatile US president on board: from chopping back the official part of the meeting, to putting him up overnight in the royal palace.
Underpinning the leaders' discussions on defence was Moscow's war with Kyiv, with the summit's final statement referring to the "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security".
Though its language was watered down from previous years, the declaration also said allies would continue to support Ukraine, "whose security contributes to ours", and allies will be allowed to use money from the new pledge for military aid for Kyiv.
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky played a less central role than at previous summits -- with leaders wary of any embarrassment after an infamous row with Trump during a visit to the Oval Office.
But the US president did meet the war-torn country's leader on the summit sidelines, declaring afterwards the encounter "couldn't have been nicer" and Zelensky hailing a "substantive" meeting.
Trump also said he was talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war, adding: "I think progress is being made."
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also met Zelensky along with a group of other European leaders, saying afterwards he hoped to "use the momentum from the summit to continue to step up support for Ukraine".
NATO chief Mark Rutte, also present at the Starmer meeting, renewed a promise that Ukraine's bid for membership remained "irreversible", but the summit statement avoided any mention of Kyiv's push to join after Trump ruled it out.
'Not a rip-off'
Trump had rattled allies on the summit's eve by appearing to cast some doubt on the validity of NATO's mutual defence clause -- known as Article Five of the alliance treaty.
But the pledge was reaffirmed unequivocally in the summit's final statement -- and Trump drove the point home at his closing press conference.
"I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing," Trump said in closing remarks to the press, when pressed on the mutual defence clause known as Article Five.
"But I left here a little bit differently," said the US leader -- who was visibly delighted at the red carpet welcome and the praise lavished on him by NATO's Rutte among others.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Roya News
41 minutes ago
- Roya News
At least seven injured in Russian strikes across Ukraine as ceasefire talks stall
At least seven people were injured overnight Saturday into Sunday in Russian strikes targeting several regions across Ukraine, according to Ukrainian authorities. The attacks came amid a deadlock in ceasefire negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv, with Russia continuing its daily bombardment of Ukrainian towns and villages. Ukraine's air force reported that Russia, which currently occupies about 20% of Ukrainian territory, launched 477 explosive drones and 60 missiles of various types. Of those, 475 drones and 39 missiles were intercepted, the military said. The air force also reported 'six confirmed impacts' from the Russian strikes but did not provide further details. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of having 'long decided to continue the war despite international calls for peace.' Zelenskyy reiterated that 'Ukraine must strengthen its air defenses, which is the best way to save lives,' and again expressed readiness to purchase U.S.-made systems such as the Patriot. So far, US President Donald Trump, who has drawn closer to Russia since February, has not responded to Kyiv's request. According to Ukrainian police, six people, including a child, were injured in the central Cherkasy region. In Ivano-Frankivsk, in western Ukraine and far from the front lines, a woman was wounded and hospitalized, regional governor Svitlana Onyshchuk said. In addition to civilian casualties, a Ukrainian pilot was killed overnight when his F-16 jet sustained damage mid-air and he was unable to eject, the air force said. Zelenskyy paid tribute to the pilot in an address, noting he had destroyed 'seven aerial targets' launched by Russia during the night. On Sunday morning, following the night's wave of attacks, a man in his 60s was killed when a drone strike hit his car in the northeastern Kharkiv region, according to local officials.
Jordan News
43 minutes ago
- Jordan News
How Did the U.S. National Debt Reach Over $36 Trillion? - Jordan News
A billboard in Washington displays the current U.S. national debt at $36 trillion. The U.S. federal government continues to accumulate record levels of debt year after year, amid growing concerns over long-term fiscal sustainability. As of May, the total amount the United States owes to lenders stands at $36.2 trillion—an amount nearing historical highs when compared to the size of the nation's economy, a key metric in evaluating the government's ability to meet its financial obligations. اضافة اعلان Issues surrounding debt and the annual deficit have dominated much of the political discourse around President Donald Trump's proposed 'Big and Beautiful Law,' backed by Republicans. The proposal includes sweeping changes to tax and immigration policies, and the GOP is aiming to pass it through Congress before the Fourth of July. According to nonpartisan estimates reported by The Washington Post, this legislation could add nearly $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade when factoring in both direct costs and associated interest. Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant announced on Wednesday an extension of emergency cash management measures to prevent breaching the federal debt ceiling, pushing the deadline by nearly a month to July 24. This continuous cycle of debt accumulation, political wrangling over tax legislation, and extraordinary fiscal maneuvers by the Treasury reflects the complexity of the challenges facing the U.S. in managing the sustainability of its national debt. But how does this mounting debt affect the U.S. economy and the government's performance? 1. What Is the National Debt? As of now, the U.S. national debt totals $36.2 trillion, with the Treasury updating this figure down to the last cent daily. Debt levels remained relatively stable until the early 2000s but began rising sharply after President George W. Bush enacted tax cuts in 2001. Months later, the U.S. faced the 9/11 attacks and entered prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely financed through deficit spending. Subsequent domestic policies also increased the debt, including economic stimulus programs following the 2008 global financial crisis and the extension of Bush-era tax cuts. President Trump's massive 2017 tax cut package, followed by enormous federal spending during the COVID-19 pandemic under both Trump and President Joe Biden, caused sharp jumps in government spending—most of it funded through borrowing. 2. How Is the National Debt Measured? Policymakers often evaluate debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the total annual economic output of the country. A strong and growing GDP indicates the government's capacity to repay debt and borrow more when needed. However, a rising debt-to-GDP ratio may signal future difficulty in repaying debt. Economists are concerned about the uncertainty of when this point may be reached. Most countries cannot sustain the debt levels that the U.S. currently manages. Because much of the global economy depends on the dollar, the U.S. enjoys greater borrowing flexibility. But if lenders lose confidence in the U.S. government's repayment ability, they may hesitate to extend further credit—potentially triggering serious global economic consequences. The previous peak in the debt-to-GDP ratio was after World War II, during a period of rapid economic expansion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. is projected to surpass that record by 2027. 3. What Makes Up the National Debt? Federal spending falls into two categories: discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending includes funding for federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense, Education, Homeland Security, and Health Services. It must be approved annually by Congress and signed by the president. Mandatory spending includes programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' healthcare. 4. What Is Mandatory Spending? Mandatory spending constitutes the largest share of the annual federal budget. It supports millions of Americans through programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and anti-poverty initiatives such as SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). Due to its essential role in citizens' lives, efforts to reduce the deficit often prove politically unpopular, as they frequently target critical social safety nets. 5. How Has the Debt Grown—or Shrunk? The $36.2 trillion national debt reflects the accumulation of annual deficits—the gap between government revenue (taxes and fees) and spending. For much of the 20th and 21st centuries, the U.S. has run annual deficits. Economists argue this is not inherently bad, as borrowing enables governments to invest in growth and distribute the cost of major programs over time, much like taking out a mortgage or a business loan. 6. How Have Democratic and Republican Presidents Handled the Debt? Annual deficits accumulate over time, and debt reduction has rarely been a top policy priority. The last time the U.S. government collected more revenue than it spent was between 1998 and 2001, when President Bill Clinton and a Republican-led Congress enacted social welfare reforms. From that time until 2024, Democrats and Republicans each governed for about the same number of years. During that period, Republicans increased the debt by $7.6 trillion, while Democrats added around $15 trillion. 7. Who Lends Money to the U.S.? There are two types of national debt: public debt and intragovernmental debt. Public debt refers to the money borrowed from individuals and institutions that purchase government bonds. Intragovernmental debt involves borrowing by the Treasury from funds like Social Security, which must be repaid with interest. 8. Which Countries Hold U.S. Debt? Economists primarily focus on the publicly held debt, as it's the main source for financing deficits. Foreign governments, companies, and individuals can also purchase U.S. debt, which offers several benefits. First, the U.S. is the world's largest economy with a strong history of repaying its obligations, making Treasury bonds a reliable investment—even though credit rating agency Moody's downgraded the U.S. government's rating last month. Second, when countries trade with the U.S., they receive payment in dollars. Instead of converting these to other currencies, it's often easier for central banks to reinvest them into U.S. Treasury securities. Third, holding U.S. debt serves diplomatic purposes. The U.S. has an interest in maintaining strong ties with its creditors, and buying Treasury bonds helps reinforce those relationships. 9. How Does Some Debt Lead to More Debt? As national debt increases, the U.S. must pay more to maintain its borrowing ability, which happens in two ways: Higher Interest Payments: For example, 2% interest on $100 equals $2, but on $1,000, it equals $20. Rising Interest Rates: As debt grows, investors demand higher yields, driving up interest rates. A 2% rate in 2013 has risen above 4% today to attract lenders. Global economic trends also heavily influence interest rate shifts. 10. What Are the Consequences of Rising National Debt? As debt increases, interest payments consume a larger share of the federal budget, reducing funds available for other priorities. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. government spent more on servicing the debt than it did on the Department of Defense—or even the combined costs of Veterans Affairs, Education, refundable tax credits, and anti-poverty programs. As interest obligations rise, fewer financial resources remain for critical public investments. —(Agencies)
Ammon
2 hours ago
- Ammon
Trump's Army?
Ammon News - By: Timothy Snyder TORONTO — It is a truism that authoritarian regimes stand or fall on the loyalty of the security forces, and US President Donald Trump has left little to chance since returning to the White House. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, immediately purged a half-dozen top generals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in early May ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals and a 10% cut in lower-ranking generals. But it was a speech to troops a month later, at a base named after a Confederate general, that revealed most clearly Trump's conception of national security and the role of the armed forces in ensuring it. He made no mention of the world today, addressed no common American interest that might necessitate national defense, and expressed no concern about threats from China or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And whereas US presidents typically speak of individual heroism as evidence of a country worthy of defending, Trump said nothing about cherished Constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and assembly, and not a word about democracy. America did not exist in Trump's speech. Instead, Trump used US military history to advance a cult to himself. Great battlefield achievements became deeds performed for the pleasure of a leader who then invokes them to justify his own permanent power. Military glory becomes a spectacle into which the leader can inject any meaning. That is the fascist principle that Trump understands. All politics is struggle, and he who can define the enemy can stay in power. But whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. That is why, immediately after joining Israel's attacks on Iran, he hastily declared victory – and a cease-fire. The world is too much for him. The army is just for dominating Americans. The enemy was identified in Trump's comparison of Americans seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 with the courage previous generations demonstrated fighting in the Revolutionary War, the two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. Charging a trench or jumping from a plane is of course very different from ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress. But here we see Trump's purpose: preparing American soldiers to view themselves as heroes when they participate in domestic operations against unarmed people, including US citizens. In his speech, Trump portrayed himself as more than a president. He repeatedly mocked his predecessor ('You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?'), summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution, not to a person. Such unprecedented personalization of the presidency suggests that Trump's authority rests on something besides an election, something like individual charisma, or even divine right. Soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump. Most Americans imagine that the US Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But Trump used the occasion to goad soldiers into heckling their fellow Americans, to join him in taunting journalists, a critical check on tyranny who, like protesters, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. Only he matters, and he 'loves' soldiers so much, 'We're giving you an across-the-board raise.' This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard or a paramilitary. We are witnessing an attempt at regime change, rife with perversities. It has a historical component: We are to celebrate the Confederate traitors like Robert E. Lee, who rebelled against the US in defense of slavery. It has a fascist component: We are to embrace the present moment as an exception, in which all things are permitted to the leader. And of course it has an institutional component: Soldiers are meant to be the avant-garde of democracy's demise, whose job is to oppress the leader's chosen enemies – inside the US. Describing migration as an 'invasion,' as Trump did in his speech, is meant to blur the distinction between his administration's immigration policy and a foreign war. But it is also meant to transform the mission of the US Army. If soldiers and others are willing to believe that migration is an 'invasion,' they will see those who disagree as enemies. And this is exactly what Trump sought to achieve when he portrayed elected officials in California as collaborators in 'an occupation…by criminal invaders.' The US military, like other American institutions, includes people of various backgrounds. It depends heavily on African-Americans and non-citizens. Trying to transform it into a cult of the Confederacy and a tool to persecute migrants would cause great friction and gravely damage its reputation, especially if US soldiers kill US civilians. (There is also the risk that provocateurs, including foreign ones, try to kill a US soldier.) Trump would welcome and exploit such situations. He wants to turn everything around. He wants an army that is a personal paramilitary. He wants the shame of our national history to become our pride. He wants to transform a republic into a fascist regime in which his will is law. But what do US soldiers want? Trump's speech was a highly curated affair, with audience members selected on the basis of their political views and physical appearance. Four days later, however, the military parade Trump staged in Washington – honoring the Army's 250th anniversary and his own birthday – was widely described as a 'flop,' in which some 6,600 soldiers in combat fatigues walked, not marched, past a sparse crowd. As spectacles of military glory go, Pyongyang or Red Square it was not. I wasn't there. Like at least four million other people in the US that day, I was at one of the anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies held in some 2,100 cities and towns across the country. It was the largest single-day political protest in US history, dwarfing attendance at Trump's parade and proving that a democracy exists only if a people exists, and a people exists only in individuals' awareness of one another and of their need to act together. This awareness is Trump's worst enemy. Timothy Snyder, the author or editor of 20 books, holds the inaugural Chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and is a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.
