Accessibility statementSkip to main content Democracy Dies in Darkness Sign in Advertisement clockThis article was published more than **6 years ago** Democracy Dies in Darkness fact checkerAboutArchive fact checkerAboutArchive # Many fact checks later, President Trump is (still) botching NATO spending President Trump (still) consistently misstates his impact on NATO’s budget and how that budget works. (Video: Meg Kelly/The Washington Post) ![\\"\\"](\\" apps/imrs.php?src= authors/washpost/1dc46563-04af-40d0-8e31-f31960b74a11.png&h=196&w=196\\"/) Analysis by Meg Kelly July 13, 2018 at 3:00 a.m. EDT The Fact Checker first reviewed a series of inaccurate statements that then- candidate Donald Trump made about the funding of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, back in March 2016. Over two and a half years and many Pinocchios later, Trump still doesn’t seem to understand how NATO works. He tweeted and commented on defense spending while browbeating NATO allies about supposed unpaid debts at the this year’s annual summit. But the numbers he used were often misleading or just plain wrong. As a reader service, we looked into six claims the president just couldn’t and hasn’t stopped repeating. > **“Prior to last year where I attended my first meeting, it was going down, > the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very > substantially, and now it’s going up very substantially … I let them know > last year, in a less firm manner, but pretty firm, and they raised an > additional $33 billion. … [NATO is] richer than it ever was.”****—in a news > conference, on July 12** In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg wrote, “The upswing in NATO defense spending over the past year and a half demonstrates that [President Trump’s] efforts are making a difference.” Yet, they don’t match the president’s boasts of success. Member countries have been spending more on their defense since 2014. Excluding the U.S., members have collectively increased defense spending by $11.4 billion over the past year, when adjusted for inflation and using 2010 prices and exchange rates. (Trump could be referencing the same calculation in today’s dollars, which comes to $34 billion.) Advertisement Story continues below advertisement As for being “richer than it ever was,” it’s not entirely clear what Trump means, but given the context, let’s assume he meant the amount member countries have spent on defense over time. That claim falls flat pretty quickly. As recently as 2011, using 2010 prices and exchange rates, NATO members spent more than they do today. At the height of the Cold War, between 1980-1984, they spent 4.5 percent of their collective GDP on defense. Today, it’s 2.4 percent. > **“Only five of 29 countries were making their commitment and that’s now > changed.”****—in a news conference on July 12** Trump’s right — five of the 29 NATO member states do currently spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense — the United States, Greece, Estonia, the United Kingdom and Latvia. And according to current NATO projections, three more — Poland, Lithuania and Romania — are expected to meet this guideline by the end of the year. Regardless, Trump is neglecting the fact that the deadline is still six years away and Stoltenberg wrote, “a majority of allies have plans to meet their 2 percent commitment” in time. > **“Everyone’s agreed to substantially up their commitment. … You know, the 2 > percent was a range, a goal, it wasn’t something they were committed to. Now > it’s a commitment.”****—in a news conference, on July 12** Each NATO member has had this 2 percent spending guideline since 2006, but not everyone had been actively working toward that. But after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO members pledged to stop cutting their defense expenditure and “move toward” that 2 percent guideline within 10 years. In other words, the commitment to 2 percent was made in 2014. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement Member states did “reaffirm [their] unwavering commitment” to the 2 percent pledge at this year’s summit, but the official declaration made no mention of additional increases. When asked about Trump’s claim French President Emmanuel Macron said, “There is a communique that was published yesterday. It’s very detailed. It confirms the goal of 2 percent by 2024. That’s all.” ✅ Follow Fact-checking politicians Follow Trump is equating the strength of the alliance to all member countries reaching the 2 percent benchmark. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau argued the opposite — that spending doesn’t necessarily equate to being productive member of NATO. Even though Canadian defense spending is estimated to only hit 1.23 percent of GDP, Trudeau pointed to the invaluable role Canadian troops play leading NATO missions. Defense experts Richard Sokolsky and Gordon Adams have noted, Greece met the guideline, even though it has slashed defense spending, because its economy collapsed. “Measuring what the allies spend on defense as a share of their economies tells us nothing about the capabilities they are buying,” they wrote for the War on the Rocks website. > **“Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, > where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States > has had to pay for them.” —in remarks, on July 11** It seems Trump still doesn’t understand how NATO funding works. (We’ve spelled this out multiple times before.) Daniel Fried, former assistant secretary of state for Europe, told the Fact Checker via email, “The notion that the allies owe the U.S. back dues” is wrong. Former deputy secretary general of NATO, Alexander Vershbow, said, “There are no arrears owed to the U.S. or NATO. President Trump is under the delusion that Allies pay the U.S. for protection, or is feigning ignorance on how NATO works.” Advertisement Story continues below advertisement Member countries fund NATO directly and indirectly. The majority of NATO funds are indirect. “NATO isn’t a private club like Mar-a-Lago” where countries owe dues, Derek Chollet, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, pointed out. If a country meets the 2 percent guideline, it is spending at least 2 percent of GDP on its own defense — not picking up another country’s tab. Direct contributions to finance the collective costs of running NATO headquarters, integrated command structure and some joint military capabilities, but those contributions are based on Gross National Income and according to NATO, “represent a small percentage of each member’s defense budget.” (In the past, the U.S. contribution equated to amounts less than $500 million per year — essentially, a rounding error in the defense budget.) > _“I told people that I would be very unhappy if they didn’t up their > commitments very substantially, because the United States has been paying a > tremendous amount, probably 90 percent of the cost of NATO. … But the United > States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of it depending on how > you calculate.” —in a news conference, on July 12_ If Trump is talking about direct spending to fund NATO, he’s essentially wrong. The U.S. contributes about 22 percent. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement It’s more likely he’s talking about indirect funding. Member countries collectively spent $917 billion on defense in 2017. The United States spent $618 billion, according to a NATO report. In other words, U.S. defense spending accounted for 67 percent of all defense spending by members of the alliance. “This does not mean that the United States covers 67 percent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands,” NATO’s website said, “But it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities.” Still Trump is missing the point. These are funds the U.S. has authorized to spend on its own defense. They are not the “cost of NATO.” Vershbow notes, “More than half of this is for defense activities in the Asia-Pacific, Middle East/Gulf, Africa and the Americas.” > **“Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United > States, in actual numbers, is paying 4.2 percent of a much larger GDP. So I > think that’s inappropriate also.” —in remarks, on July 11 ** German defense spending accounted for 1.2 percent of GDP. The U.S. spent 3.5 percent of GDP — not 4.2. But as we explained the ratio of defense spending isn’t all that matters. Let’s put it this way. If Germany chose to give its military a raise, Chollet pointed out, it would easily cross this 2 percent threshold. But that wouldn’t benefit the alliance in the same way that housing Ramstein Air Force Base does. Advertisement Story continues below advertisement Using 2018 predictions, if the U.S. were to up its defense spending to 4.2 percent of GDP, the defense budget would balloon to over $850 billion — over $150 billion more than is currently budgeted. Can’t see the Poll?Click Here. Share the Facts 2018-07-13 16:05:23 UTC Washington Post ![\\"Washington](\\" facts/logos/washington_post_logo.png\\"/) -1 -1 -1 ![\\"Washington](\\" ratings-4cbb4732-c48f-49da-b514-5ddd92ad91de\\") Washington Post Rating: False “Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.” Donald Trump President of the United States secretary-general-jens-stoltenberg-bilateral-breakfast/ ![](\\" Opinion/Images/518238610-1267.jpg\\") in remarks Wednesday, July 11, 2018 2018-07-11 Read More info Share ![\\"\\"](\\"/dr/resources/images/generic-newsletter-signup.png\\") ![\\"\\"](\\"/dr/resources/images/generic-newsletter-signup.png\\") Sign up Advertisement Advertisement live updatespolitics![\\"\\"](\\" apps/imrs.php?src= washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/34GPOUTQBGPJDTBZOSU6XT4H5M.JPG&w=767\\")4:44 PM #### Analysis: Vance tried to massage the abortion issue 4:29 PMVP debate moderators clarify, press and cut the mics once, for JD Vance 4:11 PMAnalysis: Vance wouldn’t let go of the Haitian migrants issue 4:07 PMAnalysis: Fact-checking the vice-presidential debate between Vance and Walz 4:04 PMHarris campaign: VP debate was ‘straight talker’ vs. ‘slick politician’ Advertisement Advertisement washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * washingtonpost.com * © 1996-2024 The Washington Post
Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back where They are delinquent as far as I am concerned because the United States has had to pay for them