NATO agrees to a big increase in military spending, pleasing Trump
Trump was pleased.
'This was a tremendous summit, and I enjoyed it very much,' he said at a news conference at the end of the meeting. He added that he understood the central role the United States plays in the defense of Europe. 'They want to protect their country, and they need the United States and without the United States, it's not going to be the same,' he said.
Trump has long denigrated NATO allies as freeloaders, relying on the United States for protection, and Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have described Europe as a drain on US security resources. The president has even mused publicly about withdrawing from the alliance.
But the summit's brief communiqué, unanimously approved Wednesday, included a restatement of the allies' commitment to collective defense in Article 5 of the NATO pact. The president has often been reluctant to commit publicly to Article 5, though he often does in private.
Advertisement
At his own news conference, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed frustration over continued questions about Trump's commitment to Article 5. He urged journalists and politicians 'to stop worrying,' adding: 'The United States is totally committed to Article 5. How many times do we want them to say this?'
The summit won praise from Senator Christopher Coons, a Delaware Democrat who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'This will be remembered as a landmark summit,' he said in an interview in The Hague. 'The agreement to spend 5 percent is a significant step forward toward a shared commitment to our collective security.'
But he cautioned that 'this money has to be coordinated and spent well, or it will do little more than run up costs and inflation.'
Others were skeptical.
'All the big challenges were left off the agenda,' said Torrey Taussig, a former Europe director for the National Security Council under former president Joe Biden. There was 'no meaningful deliverable for Ukraine, despite a fourth year of a land war in Europe,' she said, and no discussion of future policy toward Russia or the rising challenges of China.
Also, the commitment is to raise spending to 5 percent over a decade, and that is a long time. Some countries may never reach these targets.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said before the summit that Spain would spend 2.1 percent of its GDP on defense, 'no more, no less.' Slovakia and Belgium also hinted that the 5 percent pledge was going to be impossible to meet.
Advertisement
But Rutte worked around Spain with a bit of mushy diplomatic language. The communiqué said 'the allies' — not 'all allies' — had agreed to the 5 percent figure.
Rutte presented the agreement as a victory for Trump, praising him for pushing the Europeans to do what was necessary in their own interests.
'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done,' Rutte told Trump in a private text message that Trump posted on social media.
Even if countries spend unevenly, the result would be a very large increase in Europe's military spending. The hope is that the money will be spent effectively and on critical areas such as air defense and satellite intelligence, where the US is currently indispensable. There will be a spending review in 2029.
Trump has ordered a review of where US troops are now stationed, and where they should be in the future. That is likely to affect what forces NATO wants each ally to have, from troop numbers to equipment.
Despite the promises, many governments, especially in the west of Europe, will have a difficult political task to convince their publics that the threat to their security is real, and that money must be spent for deterrence.
That is 'where the rubber hits the road,' said Rachel Rizzo, a European defense expert at the Atlantic Council. 'Will European leaders expend the political capital to sell this commitment to their publics?'
But speed is also crucial, with some intelligence agencies warning of a Russian threat to Europe within three to five years of the end of the Ukraine war.
Advertisement
Ukraine was reduced to the sidelines in this summit, though President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Trump. They were scheduled to meet last week at the Group of 7 summit in Canada but the president skipped their meeting, citing a need to return to Washington to handle the conflict between Israel and Iran.
In his news conference, Rutte promised 'continued support' for Ukraine with money and equipment.
The communiqué did not mention the prospect of Ukraine's future membership in the alliance, apparently as another gesture to Trump, who opposes it. But Rutte made a point of repeating NATO's long-standing pledge of eventually admitting Ukraine.
'Our aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight today so that it can enjoy a lasting peace in the future,' he said. 'We stand by Ukraine in its pursuit of peace and will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to NATO membership,' echoing last year's communiqué in Washington.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Powell says the Fed would have cut rates this year if it weren't for tariffs
The Federal Reserve would likely have lowered interest rates this year if it weren't for President Donald Trump's significant policy changes, Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday. 'I do think that's right,' he said at a central banking forum in Sintra, Portugal, when asked if the Fed would have cut rates by now. The Fed hasn't lowered interest rates at all this year: Central bankers broadly expect Trump's tariffs to have some effect on the US economy and they've said that they want to see how the dust settles first before resuming rate cuts. But the Fed's wait-and-see approach hasn't sat well with Trump, who has repeatedly lashed out against Powell for not yet lowering rates, describing him as a 'numbskull' and a 'moron.' On Monday, Trump posted on his social media platform a note in his handwriting slamming Powell for keeping interest rates higher than dozens of other nations, writing that he 'cost the USA a fortune' and that he continues 'to do so.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the note was delivered to the Fed that same day. Trump hasn't been the only one calling for rate cuts. Two of Powell's colleagues — Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Fed Governor Christopher Waller — have recently broken rank and said the central bank could consider a rate cut as soon as July. But neither of them has gone as far as to call for the supersized rate cuts Trump has demanded. Both have said rate cuts still depend on how mild any tariff-induced inflation turns out to be. Still, a rate cut in July seems unlikely and would be difficult for the Fed to defend. Investors estimate a 81% chance of the Fed holding rates steady at its July 29-30 meeting, according to futures, compared with a 19% chance of a quarter-point rate cut. Powell in his Sintra panel noted that most Fed officials expect to lower rates at some point later this year, depending on what happens with inflation and the labor market. 'A solid majority of (Fed officials) do expect that it will become appropriate later this year to begin to reduce rates again,' Powell said. When asked if July would be too soon for a rate cut, Powell said 'he can't say' but that he 'wouldn't take any meeting off the table or put it directly on the table.' European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde — who has publicly backed Powell's apolitical, data-driven approach to policymaking — praised the Fed leader on Monday, noting that he 'epitomizes the standard of a courageous central banker.' She was on the panel with Powell Tuesday. So far, Powell has avoided commenting on Trump's attacks, including on Tuesday when he was asked if Trump's harsh public comments make it difficult to conduct monetary policy. Powell said that 'I'm very focused on just doing my job.' Lagarde was asked how she would handle Trump's criticism if she were in Powell's position, to which she responded: 'I think we would (all) do exactly the same thing as our colleague, Jay Powell, does. The same thing.' Conference attendees clapped after Lagarde's comment. 'We're trying to deliver macro stability, financial stability, economic stability for the benefit of all the people,' Powell said. 'If we're going to do that successfully, we need to do it in a completely non-political way, which means we don't take sides. We don't play one side against the other. We stay out of issues that are really not our bailiwick.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges
The "big, beautiful bill" is now back in the House, which will reconvene to take up the Senate-passed version Wednesday morning. Getty Images The Senate on Tuesday passed its version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and budget bill by a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. The 940-page bill, which now returns to the House for final approval, contains a number of provisions related to higher education that seem likely to weaken nonprofit colleges' finances, while making it more difficult for students to access financial aid and student loans. Although some House Republicans are complaining about Senate changes from the bill they passed back in May, the betting is that under pressure from Trump, they'll accept the Senate's version. 'With the goalpost of July 4th set by the President, it's likely the Senate's version will hold mostly intact,' says Michael Itzkowitz, founder of the higher education consultancy HEA Group and a former official in the Obama education department. 'There's just not too much time for the House to make any large changes at this point.' If House passage of the bill is delayed, it won't be education-related provisions that hold it up, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. The Senate bill's deeper cuts to Medicaid and bigger increase in deficit spending may worry House Republicans, he says. 'They may not be able to get this over the finish line tomorrow. And then if that doesn't happen, I think everything goes back on the table,' says Fansmith. 'But their goal is to try and move quickly.' The proposals in the bill that impact college budgets fall into three big categories: endowment taxes, changes to Pell grants and regulatory repeals. It also contains a litany of changes to federal student loans, which would phase out popular income-driven repayment plans, limit borrowing by graduate students and parents, and eliminate economic hardship and unemployment deferment options, among other things. Forbes contributor Adam Minsky explains all of these changes in detail here. Read on for a breakdown of what else the bill has in store for higher ed. One of the biggest changes between the Senate bill and the House-passed version is a change to the excise tax proposal on the investment income of college endowments. The initial House-passed bill increased the existing 1.4% tax to as high as 21% for the richest institutions. The Senate bill scales that back, and outlines an excise tax structure that would levy an 8% tax on endowments worth more than $2 million per student, a 4% tax on endowments worth between $750,000 and $2 million per student, and a 1.4% tax on endowments worth between $500,000 and $750,000 per student. Colleges would only be subject to the tax if they enroll at least 3,000 tuition-paying students (up from the current cut-off of 500 students), and if at least half of those students are located in the United States. Unlike the House bill, the Senate version doesn't punish schools for having a high number of foreign students by excluding them from the calculation of endowment per student. The Senate parliamentarian spiked the part of the proposal that would exempt religious institutions from the tax, which, Fansmith says, was part of an effort to exempt the very conservative Hillsdale College from the endowment tax. (Hillsdale would still be exempt from the tax because it enrolls less than 3,000 students). Fansmith's American Council on Education has always opposed an endowment tax. 'It's bad policy, it's a bad idea. It's taking money that was given to institutions for charitable purposes and giving it to the federal government, which basically means it's not being used for the purposes it was given, which is financial aid support, research, things that people really want schools to spend their money on.' The Senate bill would make some changes to students' eligibility for Pell grants, the federal government scholarships offered to low-income students. The bill proposes that foreign income be included in the adjusted gross income calculation that's used to determine students' financial need, and it also proposes that, regardless of any other factors, students who can afford to pay at least double the maximum Pell grant award will no longer be eligible for a Pell grant. Another change: If a student receives enough non-federal grant aid to cover the full cost of college attendance for the term, they would no longer be eligible for a Pell grant even if they met the income requirements. Notably, the final Senate version did not include changes to Pell eligibility requirements that would hurt low-income students and the institutions that enroll them, including a House-proposed change to the definition of a full-time credit load from 12 credits to 15 credits, and excluding less than half-time students from receiving any Pell dollars at all (which would have disqualified 700,000 students from the Pell program, a CBO analysis showed). A proposal to create a workforce Pell grant squeaked into the final bill after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the rules of budget reconciliation. The final, Senate-approved version of H.R. 1 includes the workforce Pell proposal with one notable change: unaccredited institutions would not be allowed to receive Pell grant money. The workforce Pell grant program would expand Pell grant access to students in short-term, eight to 15-week workforce training programs, even if they don't lead to a formal degree or credential. Eligibility for the workforce Pell would be the same as the regular Pell grant—students must demonstrate 'exceptional financial need,' which, for most recipients, is a household income of $60,000 or less each year. Students with any credentials beyond an undergraduate degree would not be eligible. According to the proposal, students would not be able to receive both a workforce Pell grant and a regular Pell grant, and the workforce Pell would contribute to a student's lifetime Pell grant maximum, which is typically about six years of coursework. The short-term programs students enroll in must be state-approved and meet some federal requirements, including a 70% completion rate and 70% job placement rate. A workforce Pell grant would be a boon to for-profit colleges, which dominate the trade school and workforce training space. (Those which aren't accredited would be excluded, however.) On Regulatory Changes In the section titled 'regulatory relief,' the Senate bill repeals or weakens several regulations for higher education institutions. The 90/10 rule, which requires that for-profit colleges receive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal sources, would revert to an earlier, more lenient version of the rule. The bill would completely eliminate the gainful employment rule, an Obama-era regulation that puts guardrails on for-profit colleges to ensure their students are prepared for employment and able to pay back their student loans. It would also spike the borrower's defense to repayment regulations, instituted in 2022, which would make it more difficult for students to have their federal student loans canceled if they've been defrauded by their school. 'It's no surprise that many student protections are on the chopping block,' says Itzkowitz. 'First off, they were mainly put in place by Democratic administrations. Second of all, a more conservative Congress generally favors the idea of removing as many regulations as possible.' The bill also delays 2022 regulations related to closed school discharges. Essentially, until 2035, students with federal loans whose colleges close will have a harder time getting those loans canceled. New in the Senate version of the bill are strengthened accountability measures that require colleges to maintain good outcomes for students in order to be eligible for federal funding. According to the bill, 'low-earning outcome programs' are defined as programs whose graduates' median earnings are less than a comparable working adult, and such programs would not be eligible for federal funding. For bachelor's institutions, a comparable working adult is described as someone aged 25 to 34 who is not currently in college and has only a high school diploma. For graduate institutions, a comparable working adult is a 25-to-34 year old who has only a bachelor's degree. 'If a college program produces graduates who earn less than someone who never went to college, it would no longer receive federal funding. That's a win-win for students and taxpayers,' Itzkowitz says. 'However, it noticeably excludes certificate programs from any accountability. This is a huge policy omission, as certificates are often the riskiest credential for students, many of them being working adults, first-generation, or women of color.' More From Forbes Forbes Revised Bill Gutting Student Loan Programs Passes Senate — Here's What It Does By Adam S. Minsky Forbes The 36 Colleges Most At Risk From Pell Grant Cuts By Fiona Riley Forbes Senate Passes Trump's Megabill: Here's What's In And Out By Sara Dorn
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump effort to dismantle African development agency
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump's appointment of a new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), indefinitely halting his directives to massively slash the agency's workforce and grant funding. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that Trump's installation of Peter Marocco as USADF's acting board chair was likely unconstitutional, ruling he needed to face Senate confirmation for it to be valid. 'While defendants argue that the President has inherent Article II power to appoint acting principal officers, there is little hope for defendants that this argument will win the day,' Leon wrote in his 16-page ruling. 'The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the legality of Marocco's appointment,' continued Leon, an appointee of the younger former President Bush. The Trump administration has looked to dismantle the USADF and other aid agencies across the federal government, alleging widespread waste and abuse. Marocco's appointment came after Trump signed a February executive order calling for the elimination of USADF and several other development agencies. Marocco has played a key role in the administration, formerly overseeing the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Once Trump purported to appoint Marocco as USADF's acting board chair, Marocco named himself the group's president. He then began sweeping cuts that included nearly everything except keeping two employees and three active grants, court filings show. Last week, Marocco publicly posted a list of grants he said the USADF was terminating but didn't have updated contact information for the recipients. The judge's decision on Tuesday sides with Rural Development Innovations, a Zambia-based consulting firm that is dependent on USADF funding. The company sued alongside two former USADF employees, but the judge said the employees weren't entitled to an injunction because they hadn't shown irreparable harm. They were represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal group that has brought a flurry of litigation against the second Trump administration. 'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' Joel McElvain, senior legal advisor at the group, said in a statement. 'No president can erase a federal agency, ignore Congress, and upend lives without legal authority. We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.' It is one of two lawsuits challenging the administration's takeover of USADF. Leon previously rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Ward Brehm, who served on USADF's board and claimed to be the group's president, finding he wasn't the right person to sue. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
