NATO prepares for tense summit as Trump questions alliance commitment
NATO allies gather in Ankara to address European defence spending and US commitment, but progress remains mixed and tempered by Donald Trump's skepticism.
NATO is heading into a summit in Ankara on July 7-8 facing an unusual challenge: demonstrating to its most powerful member that it is serious about defending itself, even as that member casts doubt on the alliance's worth.
The immediate backdrop is urgent. Russian attacks on Kyiv, renewed Iranian threats in the Strait of Hormuz, and a security crackdown in Turkey form the near-term security picture. But the deeper issue framing the summit is the transatlantic tension over burden-sharing and the future shape of NATO itself.
Defence spending: progress with gaps
On paper, European NATO allies have moved. The Atlantic Council notes that in 2025 alone, "European allies and Canada increased defence spending by 20% from the previous calendar year." Six NATO members—the three Baltic states, Denmark, Poland, and Norway—now spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP than the United States itself. Germany, Europe's largest economy, has become NATO's second-largest defence spender in absolute terms.
Last year's NATO summit in The Hague saw the allies commit to reaching 5% of GDP in annual defence spending by 2035, a gesture aimed at placating a sceptical Trump administration. In 2025, all NATO allies except Iceland (which has no armed forces) met the alliance's 2024 standard of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.
But cracks are visible. The Czech government and Hungary are forecast to dip below the 2% target in 2026. More broadly, pledges to spend do not automatically translate into deployed capability. European defence industries are "working flat out, but are at the limits of how fast they can absorb new investment," according to the reporting.
Trump's framing
The narrative problem, however, is not measured in committee reports. US President Donald Trump has signalled dissatisfaction with the alliance's trajectory. Days before heading to Ankara, he called continued US support for NATO "ridiculous," describing it as "one-sided."
His administration, via Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has outlined a vision of "NATO 3.0"—described as involving "a balanced alliance with Europe in the lead for its own defense." This framing suggests the US is preparing to step back, forcing Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own security.
The success of the summit may just be down to luck and the volatile mood of the US president.
Trump's scepticism appears to be shaping other decisions at the summit. One likely outcome is that NATO will withdraw its endorsement of Albania as the host for the 2027 summit—a move apparently driven by Trump's complaint about Albania's low defence spending relative to other members.
The Iran question
A secondary tension point is how NATO should respond to the US-Israeli conflict with Iran. Trump may press the alliance to offer more explicit support for US operations in the Middle East. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who chairs the summit, is reportedly keen to avoid deep entanglement in that discussion.
If the topic does arise, allied sources suggest NATO will likely align with a G7 formula: welcoming US-Iran diplomatic channels, condemning Iran's nuclear ambitions, and backing a Franco-British maritime operation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Mixed signals on momentum
What emerges from the reporting is a picture of genuine European effort—defence budgets are up, German spending is rising, Baltic states are outpacing US commitment levels—colliding with a US political figure who appears unconvinced. Whether the Ankara summit can bridge that gap through better messaging, concrete capability announcements, or simply appeasing Trump's mood swings remains unclear. The alliance is doing more; whether it looks like enough depends largely on who is measuring it.