www.dailywire.com
Why America Needs to Strengthen, Not Withdraw, from NATO
The last few years have tested the NATO alliance like few periods in its history. Divisions over burden-sharing, threat perceptions, and sharp disagreements on conflicts beyond Europe have strained the alliance. But America should not turn away from NATO. We need a strong, capable NATO more than ever — one that is modernized and reformed to meet today’s threats, not abandoned over the frustrations of the moment.
NATO has weathered deep divisions before. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United States strongly opposed the military actions of Britain and France in Egypt, exposing sharp transatlantic rifts and prompting European accusations of American unreliability. In the early 1960s, French President Charles de Gaulle, frustrated with American dominance, withdrew France from NATO’s integrated military command structure in 1966, ordered U.S. and NATO troops to leave French soil, and developed an independent French nuclear force. During the Vietnam era, there was strong European opposition to the war, with massive protests across the continent and open criticism from NATO governments. And in 2003, the alliance fractured bitterly over the Iraq War: France and Germany led the opposition, blocking NATO consensus on providing direct support to Turkey and prompting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s famous distinction between “Old Europe” and “New Europe.”
But each time, predictions of NATO’s demise were proven wrong. The alliance endured — and emerged stronger — because its core strategic logic remains sound: American security depends on a secure Europe.
That logic was never clearer than in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. For the first time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5 — the collective defense clause — on behalf of the United States. European allies joined American forces in Afghanistan to dismantle al Qaeda and deny these terrorists a safe haven. More than 1,100 troops from NATO allies made the ultimate sacrifice in that conflict, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. forces. When our homeland was attacked, the NATO alliance came to America’s aid.
Recent tensions have been painful. I regret that many NATO states failed to support the United States and Israel during the 2026 war against Iran. Some went further, refusing to allow the use of NATO bases and facilities for American operations. This was a serious mistake that badly damaged trust and deepened divisions within the alliance. Allies should support one another when vital interests are at stake, not selectively opt out.
Critics of an open-ended U.S. commitment to NATO have made serious arguments that decades of American security guarantees have given Europe little incentive to invest seriously in its own defense, leaving European militaries plagued by fragmented procurement, duplicated systems, hollowed-out logistics, and critical shortfalls in airlift, air defense, and precision munitions — gaps that spending percentages alone cannot fix. Past efforts at reform, such as the 2014 Wales pledge, produced little until Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine created an immediate threat to Europe, lending credence to the view that only a firm U.S. drawdown could force European capitals to invest sufficiently in their own defense. But this argument has a serious flaw: it assumes that a significant European buildup will automatically follow an American withdrawal, when in reality it could create dangerous gaps that Russia would exploit.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also has firmly rejected any notion that the alliance can move on without the United States. Speaking earlier this year, Rutte warned European leaders: “If anyone thinks here … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming. You can’t.” He emphasized that Europe would lose the vital U.S. nuclear umbrella and would need to more than double its defense spending to even approach strategic autonomy — goals that remain unrealistic in the near term.
Despite recent tensions in the alliance, real progress is being made. For the first time in NATO’s history, every one of its 32 members met or exceeded the 2% of GDP defense spending target in 2025 — a dramatic improvement from just three countries in 2014. In response to strong pressure from President Trump, European allies and Canada increased defense spending by 20% last year, bringing the collective total to more than $574 billion. NATO’s frontline states have gone even further: Poland reached 4.48% of GDP, while Lithuania and Latvia both exceeded 3.7%.
Our NATO allies did not stop at 2%: at the 2025 Hague Summit, members agreed to a far more ambitious target of 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% dedicated to core military spending and the remaining 1.5% directed toward broader security-related infrastructure and civilian resilience. That commitment, if honored, would represent the most significant peacetime increase in allied defense investment in the alliance’s history. Many long-neglected NATO militaries are finally receiving major new investments in modern equipment, munitions stockpiles, and overall readiness.
Support for Ukraine has also broadened and deepened, with European states and Canada providing more total aid than the United States since the Russian invasion began and committing billions more through mechanisms such as the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL). These steps matter because a stronger European security pillar reduces the burden on U.S. forces and makes the alliance more resilient.
And let’s be clear: the United States is not pulling out of NATO or Europe. At the Munich Security Conference in February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made this explicit, declaring that “America is not retreating but reimagining and modernizing its relationship with the alliance.” Polls consistently show broad support among the American public for NATO, and Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed that commitment with overwhelming bipartisan margins. There is simply no realistic path toward withdrawal.
What must change is the NATO distribution of labor. European NATO members need to take primary responsibility for defending their region against Russia. At the same time, the United States must reposition some of its forces to address urgent security challenges in other areas of the globe — in the Western Hemisphere and to deter China and North Korea in the Indo-Pacific. America cannot be everywhere at full strength simultaneously. A capable Europe frees American resources to focus on priorities only Washington can fully address.
Far from obsolete, NATO today is stronger than it has been in decades, serving as a bulwark against Russian aggression. Ukraine’s recent battlefield gains, including the effective use of long-range drones that have struck Moscow, St. Petersburg, and crucial oil refiners across Russia, would have been impossible without the sustained training, intelligence, equipment, and logistical support provided through the NATO framework. That backstop has imposed real costs on Moscow while demonstrating the alliance’s value in deterring wider war.
The United States and Europe must redouble their efforts to strengthen and modernize the alliance. The Trump administration should continue pressing NATO members on defense spending targets and capability gaps. European members need to build credible conventional forces, expand munitions stockpiles, and revitalize their defense industrial bases. Together, both sides of the Atlantic should update NATO’s command structures, accelerate the integration of emerging technologies, and establish clearer divisions of responsibility for out-of-area contingencies.
This work will be put to the test at the NATO Summit in Ankara next week, NATO’s first gathering in Turkey since the landmark 2004 Istanbul summit. Secretary General Rutte has signaled that alliance members will use the summit to announce tens of billions of dollars in new defense industrial contracts and to press European members to make their 5%-by-2035 pledge a binding commitment rather than an aspirational target.
The Ankara summit’s opening day will be a “Defense Industry Forum” aimed at addressing the fragmentation, bureaucracy, and slow pace of production that have long hampered European arms production. How NATO members handle Ankara, whether they agree to concrete procurement deals and a roadmap for closing Europe’s capability gaps, or leave without agreement on many commitments, will say a lot about whether the new NATO reform is durable.
NATO has never been perfect. It has always required hard bargaining and mutual compromise. But in a world of growing threats, this transatlantic alliance remains America’s most valuable force multiplier. A stronger, fairer, more capable NATO serves U.S. interests, protects shared democratic values, and can deter conflicts.
This is no time for America to walk away from the crucial NATO alliance. It is time to renew and reinforce this alliance that has kept the peace in Europe for three-quarters of a century.
***
Fred Fleitz previously served as Chief of Staff of the Trump National Security Council. He is the author of North Korea, Nuclear Brinkmanship, and the Oval Office, which was just released by Texas A&M Press.