Defense spending pledges face the Trump test
NATO will face a crucial test of its credibility and future viability this week when leaders meet in Türkiye and new European defense spending targets come under unprecedented scrutiny from the White House.
This week’s summit, which begins Tuesday, will examine whether Europe can convert larger budgets into military power quickly enough to keep President Donald Trump busy, while also preparing for a future in which Washington plays a smaller role in the continent’s security.
Last year’s summit in The Hague was seen as a breakthrough after allies pledged to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, including 3.5% on basic defense requirements and 1.5% on broader security needs.
However, the summit to be held in Ankara this year is expected to move the discussion from promises to implementation. This includes questions about procurement, industrial capacity, support for Ukraine and the political architecture of what the Trump administration calls “NATO 3.0.”
“This is the NATO summit where NATO moves from burden sharing to burden sharing,” Ulrike Franke, senior policy expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told CNBC.
The summit also comes as NATO faces pressure to maintain its support for Ukraine and adapt to a battlefield shaped by rapid technological advances in unmanned aerial vehicles, air defense and industrial capacity.
Here are five big questions facing NATO leaders:
Can NATO keep the United States busy while shifting responsibility to Europe?
Under pressure from the White House, European governments have generally agreed that they need to spend more, produce more and take more responsibility for their own security.
However, Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that NATO has been structured around US power for 77 years and this has become a political problem as well as a military one.
He told reporters at a news conference last week that if Washington retreats even without leaving, Europe will face a more difficult question: How to organize defense without the United States at the centre.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is focused on keeping Trump busy as he moves forward with burden-shifting plans. But Bergmann said there had been little discussion of a “plan B” if the United States decided it did not want to become deeply involved.
Another priority for Europe is clarity, Franke said. If Washington wants to withdraw its forces, assets or capabilities, allies need a road map and timeline. That could be difficult for Trump, whose approach to allies is often unpredictable.
According to Franke, Europeans will also be willing to publicly present a united front, especially on defense spending. Spain and France were already facing criticism over their defense budgets. Meanwhile, Britain and France face serious fiscal constraints, although they recognize the need to do more.
Will Europe’s defense boom provide weapons or just higher budgets?
NATO’s spending push has already changed the momentum in Europe’s defense sector. Poland, the Baltic states and the Scandinavian countries have made the fastest progress, reflecting their proximity to Russia. But larger economies have moved more slowly due to fiscal pressure and domestic policy constraints.
“There is money in the system now, but we need to be able to spend it,” Franke said. “Europe needs to be able to produce something.”
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary general Mark Rutte, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer, front row, from left, with other world leaders during a family photo at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Europe’s defense industry remains fragmented and constrained by supply chains, bureaucracy, labor shortages and years of underinvestment. Joint purchasing could theoretically reduce costs, improve interoperability and create scale. In practice, governments still want contracts, jobs and tax revenue at home.
Franke pointed to Franco-German defense projects as an example of how national political incentives can slow cooperation, even if joint production makes strategic sense.
Can allies support Ukraine as the war progresses?
Ukraine is expected to be at the center of Ankara in discussions focused on long-term military support, Kiev’s own defense industry and what NATO can learn from the country after more than four years of full-scale war.
This came at a time when Russia was suffering heavy losses on the battlefield. “The data shows that [that] “The Russians are performing terribly in 2026,” said Seth Jones, director of the CSIS Department of Defense and Security, noting the increasing casualty rates and loss of territory.
Kiev has also stepped up long-range drone and missile attacks inside Russia. This attack, which targeted energy, military and logistics infrastructure, demonstrates the progress Ukraine has made in developing its domestic offensive capabilities.
Franke said NATO should stop seeing Ukraine as a country that only receives Western aid. Kiev is now a source of military innovation, especially in terms of drones, counter-drone systems, and battlefield data on how to fight Russia.
“Ukraine has cards in drone and counter-drone systems,” Franke said.
This could shift the NATO conversation from how the alliance is helping Ukraine to how Ukraine is helping NATO prepare for modern warfare.
Can NATO avoid political fractures as the alliance evolves?
The summit comes after months of tension between Washington and European allies, including Trump’s frustration with what he sees as insufficient European support during the Iran conflict.
Franke said Iran could take part in Ankara. This could include discussion of Europe’s possible contributions to maritime security or to any peace arrangement, including minesweeping efforts. But he said such contributions would likely be limited and partly symbolic, as Europeans were still not fully aligned with Washington’s approach.
Franke said European unity would be important if Trump singled out countries for spending, but this would be difficult in an environment where threat perceptions differ greatly across Europe.
There is also a question about future regulations. NATO summits were not traditionally annual events, but have been held annually since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Bergmann said that it would not surprise him if this was the last NATO summit under Trump’s presidency, amid uncertainty about the interim Albania summit to be held next year and the 2028 US election calendar.
This possibility may increase the risk. If this summit is a “last hooray”, the message Trump chooses to send at this NATO summit could have a meaning far beyond Türkiye.
What does Türkiye want from hosting the summit?
Türkiye’s role as host adds another layer of complexity.
Like previous host countries, Türkiye is likely to use the summit to raise its own security concerns and defense industry.
According to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a successful summit would likely assert Türkiye’s centrality, prevent a major diplomatic meltdown and strengthen Ankara’s claim to access defense supplies as Europe’s military spending increases.
IZMIR, TURKEY – MAY 21: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to Izmir on May 21, 2026 to attend the elite observer day of the EFES-2026 Combined, Joint, Live Fire Field Exercise, one of the largest and most comprehensive military exercises carried out by the Turkish Armed Forces. (Photo: Presidency of Türkiye / Mustafa Kamacı / Statement/Anadolu, via Getty Images)
Anatolia | Anatolia | Getty Images
“Defense purchases [and] “Legitimization of the regime is probably Türkiye’s main goal,” said Bergmann, pointing out that democracy has declined under Erdogan.
Turkey may also worry about being excluded as the EU channels more defense spending toward European producers, he said, adding that because Turkey is in NATO but not the EU, access to future contracts and joint projects could become a priority.
As NATO tries to keep the United States busy, arm Europe faster, and keep Ukraine afloat, Türkiye will likely press its own case: A new European security architecture still needs Ankara at the table.
