Trump affirms his commitment to Nato's Article 5 pledge for mutual defence
Before landing in the Netherlands on Tuesday, Mr Trump cast doubt on whether the US would abide by Article 5 of the Nato treaty, which calls on all members to defend one another in case of an attack.
But on Wednesday, the US president said he stood with that promise.
Front row left to right, Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during a group photo of Nato heads of state and government at the Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands (Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP)
'That's why I'm here,' Mr Trump said as he met with Dick Schoof, the prime minister of the Netherlands. 'Why would I be here?'
Meanwhile, the alliance on Wednesday enacted one of the Republican president's chief priorities: a pledge by Nato member countries to increase, sometimes significantly, how much they spend on their defence.
'I've been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years,' Mr Trump said earlier on Wednesday as he met with Mark Rutte, the alliance's secretary general.
'I think that's going to be very big news.'
The 32 leaders endorsed a final summit statement saying: 'Allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence- and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.'
Spain had already officially announced that it cannot meet the target, and others have voiced reservations, but the investment pledge includes a review of spending in 2029 to monitor progress and reassess the security threat posed by Russia.
The boost in spending follows years of Mr Trump's complaints that other countries were not paying their fair share as part of an alliance created as a bulwark against threats from the former Soviet Union.
Most Nato countries, with the key exception of Spain, appeared motivated to bolster their own defences not just by Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine but also, perhaps, to placate Mr Trump.
🆕 NATO Allies have agreed to invest 5% of their GDP annually in defence.
A substantial commitment in response to significant threats to our security#NATOsummit pic.twitter.com/eFgwH3pfrR
— NATO (@NATO) June 25, 2025
As a candidate in 2016, Mr Trump suggested that as president he would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defence guarantees outlined in Article 5 of the Nato treaty.
In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that Nato would come to the United States' defence if needed, though the alliance did just that after the September 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?' Mr Trump said.
'But I'm committed to being their friends.'
He signalled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he was at the summit.
New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, who travelled to The Hague and met with several foreign leaders at the summit, said other countries raised 'understandable questions' about the US 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 Ms Shaheen, who represented the US Senate with Democratic senator Chris Coons of Delaware.
From right, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth, secretary of state Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump during a meeting with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte at the Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands (Piroschka Van De Wouw, Pool Photo via AP)
Mr 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 Mr Trump arrived in the Netherlands, news outlets, including The Associated Press, reported that a US intelligence report suggested in an early assessment that Iran's nuclear programme had been set back only a few months by weekend strikes and was not 'completely and fully obliterated', as Mr Trump had said.
But on Wednesday morning, Mr Trump and other senior cabinet officials vigorously pushed back on the assessment, and defence secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration was launching an investigation into who disclosed those findings to reporters.
'That hit ended the war,' Mr Trump said.
Drawing comparisons to the atomic bombings from the US during the Second World War, 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 Mr Trump would meet with one on one while in The Hague, but the US president said during his meeting with Mr Rutte that he will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
17 minutes ago
- ITV News
At least 81 killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, as Trump reiterates calls for ceasefire
US President Donald Trump has reiterated calls for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, as Gaza's health authorities said 81 people were killed in Israeli strikes in the past 24 hours. In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, he wrote: 'MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!' It comes as an Israeli official said plans were being made for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to travel to Washington DC in the coming weeks, a sign there may be movement on a new deal. On Friday, Trump raised expectations Friday for a deal, saying there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters, he said, 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' Despite an eight-week ceasefire reached just as Trump was taking office earlier this year, attempts since then to bring the sides toward a new agreement have failed. Meanwhile, the Israeli military on Sunday ordered a mass evacuation of Palestinians in large swaths of northern Gaza, an early target of the war that has been severely damaged by multiple rounds of fighting. Col. Avichay Adraee, a military spokesperson, posted the order on social media. It includes multiple neighbourhoods in eastern and northern Gaza City, as well as Jabaliya refugee camp. The military will expand its escalating attacks to the city's northern section, calling for people to move southward to the Muwasi area in southern Gaza, Adraee said. Hundreds of thousands of people are in northern Gaza following their return during a ceasefire earlier this year. In Iran, at least 71 people were killed in an Israeli attack on Tehran's Evin prison, Iran's judiciary said. The attack took place on 23 June and hit several prison buildings and prompted concerns from rights groups about the safety of the inmates. Evin prison is a notorious facility where many political activists have been held. Judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir posted on the office's official Mizan news agency website Sunday that those killed included staff, soldiers, prisoners and members of visiting families. Iran had not previously announced any death figures. On Sunday, Iran confirmed that top prosecutor Ali Ghanaatkar, whose prosecution of dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, led to widespread criticism by human rights groups, had been killed in the attack and would be buried at a shrine in Qom. From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below...
NBC News
33 minutes ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
NATO scrambles warplanes after Putin's 537-missile assault on Ukraine
NATO warplanes were scrambled overnight in a dramatic show of force as Vladimir Putin launched a terrifying barrage of more than 500 missiles and drones across Ukraine . The alliance sprang into action amid fears the Russian blitz could spill into neighbouring countries, with Poland confirming its fighter jets had been launched and its air defences placed on full alert. The massive aerial assault, involving Tu-95 strategic bombers, MiG fighter jets, hypersonic Kinzhal 'Dagger' missiles, Iranian-designed Shahed drones and Iskander ballistic missiles, devastated swathes of Ukraine and triggered a desperate response from Kyiv 's air force. Ukrainian officials said 475 of the 537 Russian aerial threats were shot down. Poland's operational command confirmed that NATO fighter jets were launched in response to the sheer scale of the Russian onslaught. 'Due to the attack by the Russian Federation carrying out strikes on objects located in the territory of Ukraine, Polish and allied aviation has begun operating in our airspace,' said a statement. 'The Operational Commander of the [armed forces] has activated all available forces and resources at his disposal. 'The on-duty fighter pairs have been scrambled, and the ground-based air defence and radar reconnaissance systems have reached the highest state of readiness. 'The steps taken are aimed at ensuring security in the areas bordering the threatened areas.' One 'hero' pilot was confirmed to have been killed in the crossfire. Lt-Col Maksym Ustimenko, 32, was hailed a national hero after he single-handedly downed seven air targets before his aircraft was fatally struck. 'The pilot used the entire complex of on-board weapons, and shot down seven air targets,' said the Ukrainian air force. 'During the last exercise, his plane was damaged and began to lose altitude. 'Maksym Ustimenko did everything possible, took the plane away from a settlement, but did not have time to eject... 'He died like a hero.' The fallen pilot had been flying an American-made F-16. The full-scale aerial assault, targeting cities from east to west, was described as one of the most powerful waves of airstrikes since Russia launched its invasion in 2022. In Kremenchuk, apocalyptic scenes emerged after a former oil refinery was hit by a barrage of cruise missiles, hypersonic Kinzhal rockets, and suicide drones. Meanwhile, a major industrial facility in Zaporizhzhia was set ablaze by a direct missile strike. 'A production facility of one of the enterprises was damaged,' confirmed Ivan Fedorov, head of the regional military administration. Mykolaiv and parts of the Donetsk region also suffered hits as the Kremlin's forces continued to pound infrastructure sites across the country. In the western city of Lviv, perilously close to NATO's eastern flank, Mayor Andriy Sadovyi said Russian forces targeted critical infrastructure. But, no civilian homes or lives were lost. In total 477 Shahed drones, four Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, seven Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles, and 41 Kh-101/Iskander-K cruise missiles were launched in a single night.
