logo
Trump defies the skeptics and conquers Europe

Trump defies the skeptics and conquers Europe

The Hill14 hours ago

Remember how President Trump was going to destroy the NATO alliance? How Joe Biden was the trusted guardian of U.S. international relations? Remember Biden crowing, 'We're back?'
It turns out that Trump is back, and thank Heaven for that.
Trump has arguably just saved NATO, and possibly Europe. His triumphant return to the NATO stage — called by NPR the 'Trump-dominated NATO summit' — should be celebrated by every American. He stood up for our country, as opposed to acting as a functionary of the global world order, and it worked.
NPR reported that the recent summit in the Netherlands is being called 'transformational' and 'historic.' They write, 'If there were doubts that the United States runs NATO, the summit removed them.' They also quoted Finland's President Alexander Stubb as saying, 'We're witnessing the birth of a new NATO.'
Has NATO been bullied by Trump? Yes — bullied into becoming a stronger, more effective alliance that will draw on the treasuries of its 32 member countries to beef up its mutual defense. No longer will it rely so heavily on the U.S. to counter Russia or other adversaries. With the U.S. still providing a needed backstop, Europe is taking charge of its own destiny, at long last.
NATO members have now agreed to hike their outlays on munitions and other defense items to 5 percent of GDP — an astonishing pivot from years of underinvesting, and also a huge win for Trump on an issue he has been raising for more than a decade. Europe's free ride is over.
Further defying the incessant naysayers, Trump affirmed our country's commitment to the alliance in a press conference afterward, calling NATO essential for the 'safety of Europe and the safety of the world.'
In 2023, former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton, whom Trump fired in 2019, predicted, 'In a second Trump term, we'd almost certainly withdraw from NATO.' In 2024 the Brookings Institute quoted Bolton's dire warning in a piece titled, 'Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?' Their conclusion? 'Most likely not — at least not with the United States as a committed ally and alliance leader.' The Brookings author explained that Trump 'believes allies use their defense savings to bolster their industries, out-compete the United States in trade, and take American jobs.'
And of course, the Brookings author was all wrong, even though Trump is right in all of those beliefs. Yes, Europe has been freeloading for decades, relying on the U.S. to pay for the bulk of its defense and — to rub salt in the wound — also erecting tariffs and non-trade barriers to advantage its own industries. But those days are over. Both on defense and trade, Trump has lowered the hammer.
In 2017, the U.S. accounted for 51.1 percent of the allies' combined GDP and 71.7 percent of their combined defense expenditures. More shocking: in 2017, the U.K. spent some $55.2 billion on defense, Germany $45.4 billion and France $45.9 billion; the United States shelled out $685.9 billion. What's reasonable about that?
Eventually, some European countries got on board with the need to up their militaries. Earlier this year, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk addressed the European Parliament and said, 'Don't ask America what it can do for our security. Ask yourselves what we can do for our own security.'
Poland is one of the few countries in Europe spending 5 percent of its GDP on defense because, as Tusk said, 'Poland … has such a long border with Russia and Belarus, and the friendly one with Ukraine, but a war border in a way at the moment.' He made the case: 'If Europe is to survive, it needs to be armed. It is not our choice.'
Early in his 2016 presidency, Trump attended his first NATO meeting, and began a years-long push to get members to raise their spending. In 2014 the alliance had committed to raise defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, but only six countries at the time of the 2017 gathering had met that goal or even indicated a willingness to do so. Thanks in part to public shaming by Trump, by 2023, more than two-thirds of alliance countries were expected to hit that target.
Trump not only embarrassed NATO, he also refused to reflexively support Article Five of the 1949 Washington Treaty, which affirms that an attack against one 'shall be considered an attack against them all.' That set off alarm bells.
The Brookings analyst noted that endorsing 'Article Five is something American presidents ritualistically do, in part because Article Five does not commit allies to a specific action. However, American presidents other than Trump made clear the United States would come to the aid of an attacked ally with U.S. military force. That bolsters deterrence.'
He noted that Trump, at a campaign stop last year, threatened that if NATO members did not raise their defense outlays, he would 'absolutely not' defend them, adding 'I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want.'
What has been the fallout from Trump's bullying of NATO? They have done exactly as he correctly wanted them to do, taking on an increasing share of the collective defense budget. In 2014, members other than the U.S. accounted for roughly 24 percent of total defense spending. By 2024 that portion had jumped to about 36 percent. That is a win, not only for the U.S. but for Europe as well.
Forcing Europe into self-reliance is essential to our ability to counter China. As Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in February, 'We also face a peer competitor in the communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.'
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte texted Trump as he traveled to the NATO gathering, saying 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.'
Indeed.
Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped
House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped

The Hill

time38 minutes ago

  • The Hill

House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped

The Big Story A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. © Greg Nash Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying President Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither question. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he said. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 'I think their key facilities have been disabled, and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Iran's foreign minister: Israel had to run to 'daddy' Iran 'showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO Choice but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened out by our missiles,' wrote Seyeb Abbas Araghchi, Iran's Foreign Minister, on X. This comes amid a back and forth between Iran and the U.S. after the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke for the first time since the U.S. strikes. 'My congratulations on our dear Iran's victory over the US regime,' … Senate blocks Iran war powers resolution The Senate blocked an effort Friday to prevent President Trump from taking future military action against Iran without authorization from Congress, less than a week after he directed strikes aimed at the country's nuclear capabilities. Senators voted 47-53 largely along party lines against the war powers resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the lone GOP lawmaker to vote with Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), … Schiff: 'Too many unknowns' to claim 'victory' in stopping Iran nuclear weapons Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Friday it's 'premature' for anyone to be claiming that Iran will not try to continue its nuclear program. 'The Iranian regime had not made a decision to build a bomb, was not pursuing the mechanism of a bomb, even though it was enriching uranium,' he said in Friday comments on ABC News Live. Over the past week, there has been heavy debate over whether the U.S. strikes in Iran on June 21 … McConnell: Trump has 'some pretty rabid isolationists over at' DOD Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a swipe at President Trump's national security team in a rare interview as part of a recent pattern of public comments urging the president to consider military intervention in Iran and elsewhere more favorably. 'He's got some pretty rabid isolationists over at [the Department of Defense] — you could argue the vice president is in that group,' the former Senate Republican leader told Politico. … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senators diverge sharply on damage done by Iran strikes after classified briefing WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators emerged from a classified briefing Thursday with sharply diverging assessments of President Donald Trump's bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, with Republicans calling the mission a clear success and Democrats expressing deep skepticism. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, … On Tap Monday Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday … Read more Trump approval underwater, voters say US is on wrong track: Poll President Trump's approval rating is underwater and a majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, according to a poll released Friday. … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: Check out The Hill's Defense page for the latest coverage. You're all caught up. See you next time! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling
Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling

New York Post

time42 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling

Birthright citizenship remains a fact of life in the US — for now — following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday limiting judges' ability to issue universal injunctions halting executive action. Moments after the 6-3 ruling, the Trump administration announced plans to move forward with the president's Day One executive order redefining the 14th Amendment's promise that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore,' President Trump said during a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. Advertisement The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling did not judge the birthright citizenship question on its merits. Eric Kayne/ZUMA / 'That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' 'Yes, birthright citizenship will be decided in October in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Attorney General Pam Bondi affirmed moments later, even though the high court has yet to finalize its argument schedule and no cases related to the executive order have been picked for review by the justices. Advertisement In an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court ruled that the practice of a single district judge issuing a nationwide ruling 'likely exceed' the authority laid out by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Notably, the court did not decide whether Trump's actual order was constitutional. 'If there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country,' was how Bondi explained the ruling. Trump's order would limit US citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Advertisement The action was enjoined three days after Trump signed it by a Seattle federal judge, who called the move 'blatantly unconstitutional.' President Trump said the administration now can go forward with 'numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' On Friday afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a fresh class-action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order, a legal maneuver which must meet certain requirements before getting a hearing. 'This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation,' the organization said in a press release. Advertisement The 22 Democrat-led states that challenged Trump's order also expressed confidence that it would never be enforced. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land,' said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, 'and of course birthright citizenship as well.' Locally, a City Hall spokesperson confirmed to The Post that Friday's Supreme Court ruling has no effect on New York City at this time. With Post wires

Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy
Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy

Wall Street Journal

timean hour ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy

WASHINGTON—President Trump hasn't sounded much like Donald Trump in recent days. He said the U.S. needed to attack Iran over a growing nuclear threat, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wasn't ripping off America and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine. It was a remarkable shift for a president who said he would extract the U.S. from foreign entanglements, once called NATO obsolete and often has avoided criticizing Moscow.

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