Washington
CNN
—
For a 3rd straight presidential election marketing campaign, former President Donald Trump is being serially inaccurate concerning the North Atlantic Treaty Group (NATO) army alliance.
Trump triggered a transatlantic uproar this weekend by claiming at a Saturday marketing campaign rally that he had as soon as instructed the president of a “large” NATO nation that if that nation didn’t pay its “payments,” he wouldn’t defend the nation from a Russian invasion and would even “encourage” Russia “to do regardless of the hell they need.”
Trump’s incendiary remarks contained a well-known false declare. His assertion about NATO allies supposedly having didn’t pay “payments” isn’t true, as fact-checkers at CNN and elsewhere have identified for years.
And Trump has for years made a wide range of different false claims about spending by NATO and its members. Here’s a reality examine of 5 of his repeated statements.
Spending by NATO members
Trump has lengthy claimed that numerous NATO members have didn’t pay their “bills,” “dues” or “NATO fees,” that they “owe us a tremendous amount of money” or that they “owe NATO billions of dollars.”
Details First: All of those Trump claims are false. Whereas a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s goal of every member spending a minimal of two% of gross home product on protection, the 2% target is a “guideline” that doesn’t create payments, money owed or authorized obligations if it isn’t met. In actual fact, the rule of thumb doesn’t require funds to NATO or the US in any respect. Quite, it merely requires every nation to spend on their very own protection applications.
When Trump was president, the rule of thumb was written in forgiving language that made clear that it was not a agency dedication. That model of the rule of thumb, created at a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, said members that had but to succeed in 2% would “goal to maneuver in direction of the two% guideline inside a decade with a view to assembly their NATO Functionality Targets and filling NATO’s functionality shortfalls.” In different phrases, the members that have been beneath 2% in 2014 didn’t even have to vow to hit the goal by 2024 – merely to make an effort to take action by then.
NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the group’s personal operations. However there isn’t a signal that members have didn’t make these contributions, which represent a tiny fraction of the allies’ protection spending, and Trump has made clear that his discuss of money owed is concerning the 2% guideline.
Stephen Saideman, the Paterson Chair in Worldwide Affairs at Carleton College in Canada, mentioned in a Monday e mail that the phrase “inaccurate actually doesn’t cowl Trump’s safety racket/nation membership notion of dues owed to the US.”
“The cash, as you and everybody else is aware of, isn’t despatched from member states to the US or NATO (though there’s a frequent fund that pays for the buildings in Brussels and elsewhere however it isn’t that a lot cash and isn’t the main target of the two% discussions). The dedication is for every nation to spend sufficient on their very own militaries – 2% of GDP, 20% of protection spending on tools – in order that the alliance as an entire is succesful and may credibly deter Russia and do no matter else the alliance agrees to,” Saideman mentioned.
As of 2023, 11 of 30 NATO members have been assembly the two% goal, NATO estimates show. That was up from three members in 2014.
Erwan Lagadec, a analysis professor at George Washington College’s Elliott Faculty of Worldwide Affairs and director of its Transatlantic Program, famous in a Monday e mail that NATO members agreed to firmer language associated to the two% goal in 2023, formally declaring that “we make an everlasting dedication to speculate no less than 2% of our Gross Home Product (GDP) yearly on defence.” Lagadec mentioned that “arguably for the primary time the Allies HAVE made a tough dedication to reaching 2% (certainly, to reaching no less than 2%) moderately than merely ‘making an attempt to get there if doable.’”
He famous, although, that even this stronger declaration “doesn’t present a deadline” to hit 2%. Regardless, it won’t create precise money owed to the US or NATO.
NATO members’ spending earlier than Trump took workplace
As president, Trump claimed that NATO members’ spending had declined “each single 12 months” till he took workplace in 2017. He typically claimed there had been 15, 16 or 18 years of declines.
Details First: Trump’s claims that NATO members’ spending had declined yearly till he took workplace are false. Official NATO data present that non-US members’ protection spending elevated in every of the 2 years previous to Trump’s presidency – by 1.6% in 2015 and three.0% in 2016. The will increase got here after NATO members recommitted to the 2%-of-GDP guideline at the 2014 summit within the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region.
Non-US members’ protection spending will increase in annually of the Trump period have been greater than their will increase in 2015 and 2016 – the will increase have been 5.9% in 2017, 4.3% in 2018, 3.6% in 2019 and 4.6% in 2020 – and NATO Secretary Basic Jens Stoltenberg gave Trump at least partial credit. However Trump is unsuitable when he claims he reversed a downward development.
“For those who take a look at the year-on-year information, the turning level away from the nadir of European protection spending occurred in 2014, pre-Trump, and clearly resulting from Crimea,” Lagadec mentioned.
Saideman mentioned that whereas it’s doable he’s undervaluing Trump’s influence as a result of he typically dislikes Trump, “Putin deserves many of the credit score for protection spending will increase in Europe.” He mentioned, “Everybody was chopping their protection budgets after the 2008 financial disaster and as international locations began pulling out of Afghanistan, and all that modified with the seizure of Crimea.” And he argued that any will increase sparked by Trump are seemingly much less about his efforts to persuade allies than about these allies’ issues concerning the US now not conserving its commitments given what has sounded from Trump like “real hostility to the alliance and to the allies.”
Beneath President Joe Biden, non-US NATO members elevated their protection spending by 2.8% in 2021 and an estimated 2.0% in 2022, then by an estimated 8.3% in 2023.
That enormous 2023 spike was “clearly in response to the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine” in 2022, Lagadec mentioned.
The US share of NATO spending
As president, Trump repeatedly claimed that, earlier than him, the US was “paying for 100% of NATO” or “paying close to 100%.”
Details First: Trump’s claims are false. Official NATO figures show that in 2016, the final 12 months earlier than Trump took workplace, US protection spending made up about 71% of complete protection spending by NATO members – a big majority, however not “100%” or “near 100%.” And Trump’s declare is much more inaccurate if he was speaking concerning the direct contributions to NATO that cowl NATO’s organizational bills and are set primarily based on every nation’s nationwide revenue; the US was accountable for about 22% of those contributions in 2016.
The US share of complete NATO army spending fell to about 68% in 2023. And the US is now responsible for about 16% of direct contributions to NATO, the identical as Germany; Lagadec mentioned the US share was decreased from 22% “to placate Trump” and is a “sweetheart deal” provided that the US makes up more than half of the alliance’s total GDP.
What earlier presidents instructed NATO members
As president, Trump repeatedly claimed that earlier than he pressured NATO members to extend their protection spending, US presidents didn’t even ask them to take action. He singled out former President Barack Obama in his feedback on the rally on Saturday. After referring to NATO members Trump mentioned he pressured himself, he continued: “After which I hear that they like Obama higher. They need to like Obama higher.
You already know why? As a result of he didn’t ask for something.”
Details First: Trump’s claims are false. Both Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, repeatedly pressed different NATO members to spend extra on protection, although tinheritor public language was much less confrontational than Trump’s.
At a information convention in Belgium in 2014, Obama said, “If we’ve acquired collective protection, it signifies that all people has acquired to chip in. And I’ve had some issues a few diminished degree of protection spending amongst a few of our companions in NATO – not all, however many. The development strains have been taking place.” In a speech in Germany in 2016, Obama said, “Each NATO member ought to be contributing its full share – 2% of GDP – in direction of our frequent safety, one thing that doesn’t at all times occur. And I’ll be trustworthy, typically Europe has been complacent about its personal protection.” In a speech to Canada’s Parliament in 2016, he said, “As your ally and as your good friend, let me say that we’ll be safer when each NATO member, together with Canada, contributes its full share to our frequent safety.”
In a speech within the Czech Republic in 2002, earlier than a NATO summit, Bush mentioned that each NATO member must make a army contribution to the alliance, and “for some allies, this can require larger protection spending.” Bush and prime administration officers continued for the rest of his presidency to push for elevated spending. Whereas visiting Romania in 2008, Bush said, “Constructing a powerful NATO alliance additionally requires a powerful European protection capability. So at this summit, I’ll encourage our European companions to extend their protection investments to help each NATO and EU operations.”
The price of NATO’s headquarters
Whereas criticizing NATO each during and after his presidency, Trump has claimed that NATO spent $3 billion on its headquarters constructing in Belgium.
Details First: Trump’s $3 billion determine isn’t near correct. NATO instructed CNN in 2020 that the headquarters constructing was constructed for a sum underneath the approved budget of 1.178 billion euro, or about $1.27 billion at Monday change charges – actually an costly facility, however lower than half what Trump has claimed.