At the NATO summit in Ankara this week, President Trump told reporters he was “very disappointed” with the alliance over its members’ refusal to help the United States clear the Strait of Hormuz during the war against Iran.[1] It’s the same complaint he made back in March, when he posted on Truth Social that “without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER,” and called allies “COWARDS.”[2]
Before accepting the premise of that complaint, it’s worth asking a basic question: what is NATO actually for? The answer is on the record, and it does not include what Trump is asking of it now.
What was actually signed in 1949
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949, by the United States, Canada, and ten Western European nations.[3] Its core provision, Article 5, commits members to treat an armed attack against one as an attack against all — but only within a defined North Atlantic area. It was, from the outset, a mutual-defense pact built to deter Soviet expansion into a Western Europe still struggling to rebuild after World War II, alongside its economic companion, the Marshall Plan.[4]
That containment logic hardened into a formal two-bloc system six years later. On May 6, 1955, West Germany formally acceded to NATO as part of the postwar settlement ending Allied occupation of its territory.[5] The Soviet response came eight days after that: on May 14, 1955, the USSR and seven Eastern Bloc states signed the Warsaw Pact, a mutual-defense alliance formed explicitly in response to West Germany’s rearmament inside NATO.[6] The two blocs that would define the Cold War’s military architecture for the next thirty-five years locked into place within two weeks of each other.
The funding arrangement was the design, not a failure of it
This is the part that gets flattened in the current debate: NATO was never built on the idea that European members would match American military spending. It was built on the opposite premise. In 1949, Western Europe was a continent of bombed-out cities and economies years from recovery; European governments were requesting American military aid before the treaty’s ink had even dried, and Congress responded that same year with roughly $1.4 billion in military assistance to help rebuild Western European defenses.[4] The United States, by contrast, held an intact industrial base. The entire logic of the alliance — American power projected onto the continent to deter Moscow — depended on the U.S. carrying a disproportionate share of the military burden. That wasn’t a side effect. It was the point.
There is no percentage-of-GDP spending requirement anywhere in the original North Atlantic Treaty. The now-familiar “2% of GDP” defense-spending guideline wasn’t formalized until the 2014 Wales Summit — called in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, sixty-five years after NATO’s founding — and even then it was a political aspiration, not a treaty obligation: the Wales communiqué says members will “aim to move towards” 2%, not that they are bound to hit it.[7] Only three NATO members met that benchmark the year it was formalized.[8]
The imbalance the guideline was meant to address had been building for decades. Research prepared for the UK’s House of Commons found that the U.S. share of total NATO military spending rose from 59% in 1995 to 70% by 2014 — not because Europe was newly shirking some longstanding obligation, but because European defense budgets shrank steadily once the Cold War ended and the specific Soviet threat NATO was built to counter no longer existed.[8] By 2025, all NATO members had reached the 2% target, and European allies plus Canada had raised their collective defense spending from 1.4% of combined GDP in 2014 to 2.3% in 2025 — shortly before the alliance agreed, at its 2025 Hague summit, to a new 5%-of-GDP-by-2035 target pushed by the Trump administration.[9]
None of this changes the structural fact of NATO’s founding: it was built, deliberately, around American military primacy financing European security in exchange for a permanent American forward footprint against the USSR. Complaining that Europe hasn’t historically matched U.S. defense spending is complaining that the alliance is functioning as designed.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once — and not for this
It’s worth being precise about how narrow NATO’s actual collective-defense trigger has been in practice. In its 76-year history, Article 5 has been formally invoked a single time — after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, when the North Atlantic Council determined the attacks had been “directed from abroad” and agreed to treat them as covered by the treaty.[10]
The war against Iran was not a NATO operation. It was launched jointly by the U.S. and Israel on February 28, 2026, with a wave of strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, and it was never authorized by the North Atlantic Council or brought under Article 5.[11] Asking allies to commit ships and resources to protect shipping lanes disrupted by a war NATO didn’t declare and doesn’t govern is a fundamentally different kind of request than collective defense of the North Atlantic area — and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said as much directly back in March: “This is not our war; we have not started it. What does…Trump expect from a few European frigates that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?”[2]
That’s not the same as European nations doing nothing. More than ten European NATO members — including Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway — have since contributed warships and minehunters to a British- and French-led escort and mine-clearance mission in the Strait of Hormuz, under a 38-nation coalition that received political backing in May 2026.[12] The dispute isn’t that Europe refused to help. It’s that Europe didn’t treat an American war of choice, half a world from the North Atlantic, as an Article 5 obligation — because it isn’t one.
The bottom line
NATO was created to contain Soviet expansion into Western Europe, financed on the explicit premise of outsized American spending, and bound by a mutual-defense clause that has been invoked exactly once, in defense of the United States itself. Extending that framework to cover a war the U.S. and Israel started unilaterally against Iran isn’t a burden-sharing dispute. It’s a request to redefine what the alliance has always been — and then blame its members for declining the redefinition.
Notes
“U.S.-Iran Updates: U.S. launches retaliatory strikes on Iran after commercial ship attacks in Strait of Hormuz,” CBS News, July 7, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-us-war-strait-of-hormuz-trump-nato/.
“GOP senator reacts to Trump calling NATO leaders ‘cowards,'” Newsweek, March 22, 2026, https://www.newsweek.com/gop-senator-reacts-to-trump-calling-nato-leaders-cowards-11717358.
“The North Atlantic Treaty,” National Archives, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/north-atlantic-treaty.
“North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949,” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, accessed July 7, 2026, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato.
“Germany and NATO,” NATO Declassified, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_185912.htm.
“The Warsaw Treaty Organization, 1955,” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, accessed July 7, 2026, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/warsaw-treaty.
“Wales Summit Declaration,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, official text, September 5, 2014, https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm.
“DET0001 – Evidence on Shifting the goalposts: Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge,” UK Parliament Committees, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/59329/html/.
“Defence investment and NATO’s 5% commitment,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment.
“Collective defence and Article 5,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, accessed July 7, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5.
“Iran Conflict and the Strait of Hormuz: Impacts on Oil, Gas, and Other Commodities,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45281; “February 28, 2026 — US-Israeli strikes on Iran,” CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-02-28-26-hnk-intl.
“Iran War 2026 — Day 130 Update — 07 July 2026,” GlobalSecurity.org, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-war-oprep.htm.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate