What Has NATO Ever Done for U.S.?

Does NATO have a chance?

From accidental group chats to America rattling its saber at Greenland, few predicted that transatlantic relations could have deteriorated this quickly, and it seems to be centerstage in the Trump Administration's "America First" policy. Dalibor Rohac from the American Enterprise Institute wrote in Politico this week about pulling back from the world stage, focusing on the soft power that will be ceded if US AID or Radio Free Europe folds. But what about the intersection of soft and hard power? Is there a case to be made for NATO? Let's look at NATO's history, what it is and isn't, and how both sides view the organization.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was created after World War II to serve as an alliance of Western democracies to defend Europe. The key to this comes from Article V of NATO's charter, which essentially states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members, and all members are obligated to respond accordingly. Therefore, an attack on France is considered in DC an attack on Florida. As NATO's first Secretary General Baron Ismay stated, the goal was to keep the "Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Remember that immediately after the fall of Nazy Germany in 1945, compelling voices (such as Winston Churchill and General Patton) were talking about taking the fight to the USSR. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and NATO was created to discourage the USSR from advancing its sphere of influence beyond the recently installed Iron Curtain. Europe could not accomplish this on its own. The European countries that were not bombed into near oblivion were either too indebted to continue their military dominance (UK) or politically unstable (France). To keep the Soviet Union out, the United States would need to be in Europe, reaching a peak of 475,000 personnel in Europe when tensions with the Soviets reached their peak. Today, that number is closer to 80,000 as the need for local ground troops has been replaced with technological advancements. While Germany now has a profound cultural rejection of militarisation, in the wake of two devastating wars, the victorious Allied Powers were not going to risk a third. NATO served as the de facto military for West Germany for an entire decade after the end of WWII.  

That is why the post-war leaders at the time wanted the "Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

For the past 75 years, the status quo for the major American political parties has been pro-NATO. Republicans have traditionally been more militaristic and antagonistic towards the USSR and, subsequently, Russia and realized that NATO was the bulwark in keeping Soviet tank columns from rolling past the Rhine. While Democratic leaders have always questioned American defense spending, they largely respected the cultural exchange fostered by NATO. However, Presidents from both parties have challenged European spending commitments. After 1945, Europe was built mainly around robust welfare states, which was possible thanks in part to outsourcing a large portion of national defense to a friendly superpower bristling with nuclear weapons. While presidents from Eisenhower to Obama have urged more defense spending from European partners, the domestic political concerns of reducing social spending in favor of military spending proved to be unpopular until Russia invaded Ukraine.

While those former Presidents questioned Europe's priorities, they remained largely sympathetic towards NATO even after its seeming victory over the Soviet Union in 1991, with Republicans and Democrats championing its expansion into Eastern Europe. Trump's feelings on NATO aren't a secret, stating in 2018, " So, let's say Montenegro, which joined [NATO] last year, is attacked, why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack? Why is that?". Vice President JD Vance considers Europe "freeloaders ." This speaks to Trump's and the American right's distrust towards international organizations as a whole. Were these views widely known among the American voting public? No. Americans don't factor foreign policy into their voting decisions even if they were. We're famously insular and focus on domestic economic concerns every four years. But how can Trump's arcane views on defense cooperation eventually trickle down towards those meat and potato issues?  

In short, while it is true that the United States has been providing more than 1/32nd of NATO's budget, it can afford it. While the United States contributed just under 16% of NATO's overall budget in 2024, it also represents a whopping 53% of the bloc's GDP. But let's put that spending into an American perspective. 16% of NATO's 4.6 Billion Euro/$4.9 Billion budget is only 0.056% of American defense spending. Not 5%, or even 0.5%. Even if the United States were to fund 100% of NATO, that number would only represent 0.35% of total American defense spending. However, this has kept NATO from being Europe's or the EU's military. The United States has funded a large part of NATO; every military leader of NATO's Allied Command Operations has been an American military officer. Additionally, not every EU member belong to NATO, thanks to longstanding neutrality policies, nor are all members of NATO, like the United States, Canada, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Iceland, and Norway, members of the EU.  

What has the United States received in return? Dozens of ideologically similar and sympathetic trade partners pivoted towards the United States after World War Two and the Cold War, resulting in even more trade and wealth for the United States. European NATO countries have paid billions, if not trillions, to American defense contractors in the past 75 years. The UK's Royal Air Force operates 35 Boeing F-35 B's at approximately $109 million per unit. The French Army utilizes machine guns manufactured by General Electric. The Royal Netherlands Navy recently purchased American Tomahawk missiles.  

But that is just in raw American defense spending. Remember when I mentioned Article V or NATO's mutual defense clause? In the 76-year history of NATO, it has only been invoked once, after the United States was attacked in 2001. However, withdrawing from Europe, either literally or figuratively, represents a massive reduction in not only the hard power the US can project but also the cohesive or soft power supporting Europe's defense. Does anyone believe Europe would have remained as Atlantic-facing as it did if the United States retreated back to the Western Hemisphere after 1945? NATO, the Marshall Plan, and the explosion of American media across the world helped define the late 20th Century as the time when the United States reigned supreme. It all helped keep the Soviets "out".

---

The bottom line: Yes, America has largely bankrolled NATO since its inception. However, the United States has received its investment back many times over throughout the years, both directly through Allied military spending on American equipment and indirectly via a close trade network with largely affluent European partners. The US's contributions to NATO also represent a drop in the bucket compared to other military spending. And yes, Europe has benefited from this arrangement, perhaps for too long. Europe's defense should not be subject to disaffected American voters who rarely, if ever, factor foreign policy into their electoral choices. Given Trump's near total disregard of institutions, I hope European leaders are planning for the likely event that the United States removes itself from NATO. He's already expressed an intention to not appoint a new American NATO commander, setting the stage to remove American troops from Europe so as not to have them under a European command. This would effectively neuter NATO by removing a very real barrier keeping Russia out.  If Europe can break down the cultural barriers that have hindered Macron’s dream of strategic autonomy, then it can be positioned as a co-equal player along the likes of the US, Russia, and China.  But that is a big if.