NATO & International Alliances

America's alliances — especially NATO — are strategic force multipliers that save money, deter adversaries, and protect the global trade system, not charity to ungrateful freeloaders.

Last updated: March 12, 2026

Domain

Foreign Policy → Defense & Diplomacy → Alliance Strategy

Position

America’s network of alliances — led by NATO — is the most successful security arrangement in modern history, a strategic asset that deters adversaries, protects trillions in trade, and costs far less than going it alone. Weakening these alliances doesn’t save money — it makes America less safe and less prosperous.

The Trump administration has pushed NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 — a target no member, including the U.S., currently meets — while publicly questioning America’s commitment to collective defense. At the June 2025 Hague Summit, allies endorsed this new benchmark, but the rhetorical assault on the alliance has created real uncertainty about whether Article 5 still means what it says.

Key Terms

  • Article 5: NATO’s collective defense clause: an attack on one member is an attack on all. It has been invoked exactly once — after 9/11, when America’s allies came to its defense, not the other way around.

  • Burden-Sharing: The distribution of defense costs among alliance members. In 2014, NATO set a guideline of 2% of GDP on defense; by 2025, all allies are expected to meet this target, up from only 3 in 2014. The new 2025 Hague Summit benchmark is 5% of GDP by 2035.

  • Force Multiplier: A military concept describing how a capability increases the effective strength of a force beyond its individual contribution. NATO allies provide bases, intelligence, troops, and interoperability that would cost the U.S. hundreds of billions to replicate independently.

Scope

  • Focus: The strategic and economic value of U.S. alliances — particularly NATO — and why the “burden-sharing” debate misrepresents how alliances work
  • Timeframe: Post-Cold War era through 2026, with emphasis on recent developments
  • What this is NOT about: Whether specific military interventions (Libya, Afghanistan) were wise, the internal politics of individual NATO members, or non-NATO alliances in detail (though they’re referenced)

The Case

1. Alliances Are a Force Multiplier — Not a Charity Program

The Point: NATO and U.S. alliances worldwide provide strategic capabilities that would be vastly more expensive for the U.S. to replicate on its own.

The Evidence:

  • Non-U.S. NATO allies’ combined defense spending has surged to over $560 billion annually — a massive capability that the U.S. would otherwise need to provide itself (Atlantic Council NATO Tracker, 2025)
  • The Belfer Center at Harvard estimates that without NATO, the U.S. would need to increase its own defense budget by $100–200 billion annually to fill the security vacuum left by a fragmented Europe (Belfer Center, 2025)
  • NATO allies provide the U.S. with access to a network of bases, ports, and airfields across Europe that enable power projection into the Middle East, Africa, and the Arctic — infrastructure that would cost hundreds of billions to build from scratch, if it could be built at all

The Logic: The “burden-sharing” framing treats alliances as if the U.S. is paying other countries’ bills. In reality, alliances are an investment with enormous returns. A dollar spent by a NATO ally on interoperable forces effectively extends American military capability at a fraction of the cost of doing it alone. The U.S. isn’t subsidizing Europe — it’s buying the most cost-effective security arrangement in modern history.

Why It Matters: Withdrawing from or weakening NATO doesn’t save the U.S. money. It shifts the costs — and risks — entirely onto American shoulders while giving adversaries like Russia exactly the divided, weakened Western front they’ve sought for decades.

2. Allies Came to America’s Defense — the Only Article 5 Invocation Was for the U.S.

The Point: The narrative that the U.S. defends ungrateful allies while getting nothing in return is historically false — NATO’s one and only Article 5 invocation was to defend America.

The Evidence:

  • Within 24 hours of the September 11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history — and it was to defend the United States (NATO/Bush Center, 2001)
  • Over 1,000 troops from NATO allies were killed in Afghanistan fighting alongside Americans as part of the Article 5 response. NATO launched Operation Eagle Assist, deploying AWACS aircraft with 830 crew members from 13 nations to patrol American skies (NATO SHAPE, 2001-2021)
  • Germany’s Bundestag voted to send 3,900 troops to Afghanistan specifically to fulfill its Article 5 obligations — despite strong domestic opposition to the deployment (Wilson Center, 2001)

The Logic: The idea that the U.S. is the only country “paying” for NATO is contradicted by the alliance’s actual history. When America was attacked, its allies showed up — with troops, aircraft, intelligence, and lives. The transactional framing — “they owe us” — disrespects the sacrifice of allied soldiers who fought and died alongside Americans in a war that was waged in America’s defense.

Why It Matters: If the U.S. signals that Article 5 is conditional or transactional, no ally will trust it in a future crisis — and no adversary will fear it. Credibility is the foundation of deterrence, and it can be destroyed far faster than it can be rebuilt.

3. NATO Protects Trillions in Trade and Economic Stability

The Point: The transatlantic relationship protected by NATO underpins the largest economic partnership on Earth — threatening the alliance threatens American prosperity.

The Evidence:

  • Bilateral trade between the U.S. and Europe exceeds $1.6 trillion annually, making Europe America’s single largest economic partner. NATO’s maritime commands ensure these trade routes remain open and secure (Belfer Center/U.S. Trade Representative, 2025)
  • European allies collectively represent the world’s largest combined market, with a GDP roughly comparable to that of the United States. Political instability in Europe — which NATO prevents — would directly impact American businesses, investments, and supply chains
  • NATO’s presence in the Baltics, Black Sea, and Arctic secures critical shipping lanes, undersea cables, and energy infrastructure that the global economy depends on. Russian interference with undersea cables in the Baltic Sea has already been documented and would escalate without allied presence

The Logic: National security and economic security are inseparable. NATO doesn’t just deter military threats — it provides the stability that makes transatlantic commerce possible. American farmers, manufacturers, tech companies, and financial firms all depend on a stable, secure Europe. The “alliance as charity” framing ignores that the U.S. is the single biggest economic beneficiary of European stability.

Why It Matters: The cost of NATO — even if the U.S. were paying the full share, which it isn’t — is a rounding error compared to the economic damage of a destabilized Europe. The post-WWII alliance system isn’t altruism — it’s the foundation of American prosperity.

Counterpoints & Rebuttals

Counterpoint 1: “European allies have been freeloading for decades”

Objection: For years, most NATO members didn’t meet the 2% of GDP spending guideline while sheltering under the U.S. defense umbrella. Why should American taxpayers subsidize wealthy European countries that won’t invest in their own defense?

Response: This criticism had merit for a long time — and it worked. European defense spending has increased dramatically, from only 3 allies meeting the 2% target in 2014 to all allies expected to meet it by 2025. Collective non-U.S. allied spending now exceeds $560 billion annually. The 2025 Hague Summit set a new 5% target for 2035. The pressure succeeded — but now the goalposts keep moving, suggesting the real agenda isn’t burden-sharing but undermining the alliance itself.

Follow-up: “5% by 2035 is still too slow. We’re paying now.”

Second Response: Fair point on urgency — but consider what “paying” means. The U.S. doesn’t write checks to NATO. American defense spending protects American interests — bases in Europe project power into the Middle East and Africa, NATO interoperability enables joint operations globally, and European stability protects $1.6 trillion in annual trade. The U.S. spends what it spends because of its own global posture, not because Europe asked it to. Allies spending more is good — threatening to abandon them if they don’t is counterproductive.

Counterpoint 2: “NATO expansion provoked Russia — the Ukraine war proves it”

Objection: Expanding NATO to Russia’s borders was a strategic mistake that provoked the very conflict it was supposed to prevent. If NATO hadn’t expanded eastward, Russia wouldn’t have felt threatened enough to invade Ukraine.

Response: This argument grants Russia a veto over the sovereign decisions of independent nations. Poland, the Baltics, and other Eastern European countries joined NATO voluntarily — often desperately — because they had direct historical experience with Russian invasion and occupation. And the argument is empirically backwards: Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because Ukraine was NOT in NATO. NATO members have not been invaded; non-members have been.

Follow-up: “But the U.S. wouldn’t tolerate a hostile military alliance on its borders either.”

Second Response: The comparison doesn’t hold up. NATO is a defensive alliance — it has never attacked Russia. Countries join voluntarily; Russia’s neighbors join because they fear Russia, not because NATO coerces them. If Russia doesn’t want its neighbors joining a defensive alliance, the solution is to stop giving them reasons to feel they need one. The invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the occupation of parts of Georgia are exactly why countries seek NATO membership.

Counterpoint 3: “The U.S. should focus on China, not Europe”

Objection: The real strategic challenge is in the Indo-Pacific. NATO ties the U.S. to European defense commitments that distract from the China threat. Resources spent on Europe are resources not available for the Pacific.

Response: This isn’t an either/or choice — it’s the core advantage of having alliances. NATO allies are increasingly contributing to Indo-Pacific security: the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands have all deployed naval assets to the Pacific. NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept named China as a challenge for the first time. A strong NATO frees up U.S. forces for the Pacific by ensuring Europe can handle its own neighborhood — weakening NATO forces the U.S. to cover both theaters with fewer partners.

Follow-up: “European allies don’t actually contribute anything meaningful in the Pacific.”

Second Response: The UK operates nuclear submarines and has a permanent Indo-Pacific presence. France has overseas territories and bases in the Pacific. Multiple NATO allies participate in freedom-of-navigation exercises in the South China Sea. But even the European-focused contributions matter: every dollar an ally spends securing Europe is a dollar the U.S. doesn’t have to spend there, freeing resources for Asia. Abandoning European allies doesn’t help with China — it just means the U.S. faces China alone.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: “The U.S. pays 70-80% of NATO’s budget.”

Reality: NATO’s common budget — the amount members actually pay into the alliance organization — was EUR 4.6 billion in 2025, with the U.S. paying about 16% (its share was recently reduced from ~22%). The “70%” figure conflates U.S. national defense spending (which serves U.S. global interests far beyond NATO) with NATO’s actual budget. These are fundamentally different things.

Misconception 2: “NATO allies don’t fight — they just ride along.”

Reality: Over 1,000 allied troops died in Afghanistan. Allies have contributed forces to Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, counter-ISIS operations, and maritime security missions. Allied nations — particularly the UK, France, Canada, and Denmark — have consistently deployed combat forces in U.S.-led operations, often taking significant casualties.

Misconception 3: “NATO is a Cold War relic that’s outlived its purpose.”

Reality: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its hybrid warfare campaigns against NATO members, and its nuclear threats have demonstrated precisely why collective defense remains necessary. Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023-2024 specifically because the Russian threat convinced previously neutral nations that they needed alliance protection. NATO is more relevant than it has been in decades.

Rhetorical Tips

Do Say

“NATO allies came to our defense after 9/11 — the only time Article 5 was ever invoked was to protect America.” This is the single most powerful rebuttal to the “freeloading allies” narrative.

Don’t Say

“We can’t afford to leave NATO” — this concedes the premise that NATO is a cost rather than an investment. Instead: “NATO is the best security deal America has ever had.”

When the Conversation Goes Off the Rails

Come back to the math. “Without allies, we’d need to spend $100-200 billion more per year to cover the same security. NATO doesn’t cost us money — it saves us money.”

Know Your Audience

For fiscal conservatives, emphasize the cost-effectiveness argument — alliances as leverage, not charity. For veterans, emphasize allied sacrifice and the 1,000+ allied troops who died fighting alongside Americans. For security hawks, emphasize the force-multiplier effect and the danger of facing both Russia and China without partners.

Key Quotes & Soundbites

“The only time NATO’s collective defense clause was ever invoked was to defend the United States of America. Our allies didn’t freeload on 9/12 — they showed up.”

“NATO allies now spend over $560 billion a year on defense — more than China and Russia combined. That’s not freeloading; that’s a force multiplier.”

“Withdrawing from alliances doesn’t save America money. It just means we pay the full price alone — and without friends.”

  • Military Spending & Pentagon Budget — The U.S. defense budget serves global interests far beyond NATO, but the “burden-sharing” debate often conflates the two (see Military Spending & Pentagon Budget)
  • Israel-Palestine & U.S. Policy — Alliance credibility depends on consistent application of international law, including to close partners (see Israel-Palestine & U.S. Policy)
  • Electoral College Reform / Democracy & Governance — Foreign policy decisions with massive consequences are increasingly made without meaningful congressional debate (see Filibuster Reform)

Sources & Further Reading