What to expect in the upcoming NATO summit: Trump, spending, Ukraine, Iran
The NATO summit will be held at The Hague in the Netherlands from June 24-25 and a range of defensive issues are expected to be addressed, including expanding national spending commitments, aid to Ukraine, emerging threats from Iran and relations with the U.S. under President Donald Trump.
This will be the president's first transatlantic summit since returning to the White House in January, and all eyes are on Trump, who has not shied away from explosive moments with U.S. allies, including at previous NATO summits.
Following Saturday's attack by the U.S. against Iran's nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic of Iran is expected to become one of the leading issues.
Here's what's on the agenda:
In a statement released one week ahead of the summit, NATO said the "Heads of State and Government are expected to agree [to] a new defense investment plan" after months of speculation the alliance could increase its spending commitments from 2% of a nation's GDP to 5%.
The notion was first pushed by Trump after he won the election, and despite the sticker shock of what that could mean for not only the eight nations not yet hitting the 2% commitment, but also the U.S. which currently spends 3.38%, many European leaders got on board.
Fox News Digital has not been able to confirm if NATO will increase its commitment to 5%, and some sources with knowledge of the discussions have suggested that figure could be closer to 3.5% over a period of up to 10 years. On Friday, it was announced that Spain was given an opt-out of paying 5%, instead, it will pay 2.1%, according to a report in the Associated Press.
"The real focus will be the new defense spending target," Peter Rough, senior fellow and director for the Center on Europe and Eurasia with the Hudson Institute, told Fox News Digital. "5% of gross domestic product as a top-line number – however, only 3.5% must be devoted to hard defense.
"And 1.5% can count toward adjacent categories, like cybersecurity or infrastructure for military mobility," he explained ahead of his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the NATO summit.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has been an ardent supporter of increasing defense spending, particularly as Europe continues to face its greatest threat since World War II.
Earlier this month, ahead of a NATO ministerial meeting that served as a walk-up to the NATO summit, Rutte said leaders "will strengthen our deterrence and defense by agreeing ambitious new capability targets."
He has detailed missile defense, long-range strike capabilities and deterrence as chief priorities, which comes not only as Russia continues its aggressive war in Ukraine, but as threats levied by a nuclearly ambitious Iran also escalate.
The issue of defending Ukraine is once again expected to be a top agenda item and has been a driving force in motivating the NATO alliance to drastically increase spending, which nations under the alliance first did following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
However, given Trump's consistent push for increased NATO defensive spending, his threats to withdraw troops from Europe and his insistence that Kyiv not be allowed to join the 32-member alliance, Ukraine's defense may not play as big of a front-and-center role this year.
"There won't be nearly as much focus on Ukraine as during the past few summits," argued Rough. "The White House is laser-focused on the defense investment pledge, and none of the other allies want to rock the boat."
While nations like France, the UK and Germany have taken more direct leadership positions and ardently pledged their continued support for Ukraine, they have also toed the line when it comes to managing transatlantic relationships with Washington under Trump.
"I'd expect a short, concise summit declaration with some mention of Ukraine but none of the ornate language that characterized past communiqués," Rough added.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to attend portions of the summit's activities, like the opening dinner, though he is not yet confirmed to attend any official NATO meetings.
Reporting suggested Trump could take issue with having Zelenskyy at a NATO event amid seemingly stalled ceasefire negotiations with Russia – which have begun to take a backseat amid the strife between Israel and Iran.
Trump has not held back at previous NATO summits when it came to the conflict over Russia, including in 2018 when he openly clashed with then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel when he accused Berlin of being "totally controlled by Russia" and claimed it was a "bad thing for NATO."
With the U.S. launching Operation Midnight Hammer against three of Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on Saturday, Iran is set to be one of the main topics for discussions by the NATO members as tensions with the regime in Tehran rise.
Additionally, Russia continues to pose the greatest threat to Europe, not only as its war ambitions continue in Ukraine, but as intelligence agencies increasingly warn that "Russia's postwar focus will be on NATO."
Rough, in his testimony to the Senate, pointed to findings by Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency that said earlier this month that "We see that NATO's collective defense promise is to be tested…We are very sure, and we have intelligence evidence to back this up, that Ukraine is only one step on Russia's path towards the West."
Danish intelligence issued similar warnings earlier this year and said that should it find the right opportunity, Russia could launch hostile operations against a neighboring nation within six months of regrouping after a ceasefire in Ukraine.
Rutte highlighted the severity of the direct threat Russia poses and said earlier this month during a trip to the UK that if nations do not take seriously the need to invest in the 5% defense spending push, then "you better learn to speak Russian."
The alliances Moscow has cemented during its war in Ukraine have also brought to the forefront a very real threat to the West as China, North Korea and Iran have all played a major role in fueling Russia's war machine.
China, while it claims neutrality in the war, has staunchly supplied Russia with electronic components critical to modern warfare. Iran has supplied drones and technical know-how, while North Korea has not only provided munitions and military equipment, but boots on the ground for the war.
While China and Russia have repeatedly committed their partnership as united against the West, North Korea has become increasingly emboldened and been provided technical know-how for missile development in exchange for its support, which poses a significant threat to not only partners in the East, but Western interests.
Rough warned that "Russian President Vladimir Putin remains implacably opposed to the U.S.-European partnership, which he seeks to undermine at every opportunity."
Additionally, Rough, citing U.S. military officials in Europe, said it would be a mistake to remove U.S. troops from Europe amid these increasingly united threats against the West.
Troop agreements, collective defense and U.S. involvement in deterring Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are all expected to be a major point of discussion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
US bombs Iran: Trump's gamble: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?
It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites considered crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." Watch Trump's address to the nation after US bombed Iranian nuke sites More: US on 'high alert' for Iran retaliation, says nuke program 'obliterated' That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster, Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate over whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. Though most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the decision, some people prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. It's the stuff of Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing early June 22. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq War. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching a strike despite his campaign promises. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On June 23, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israeli ambassador says Hamas to blame as she is challenged on deaths of children in Gaza
Israel's ambassador to the UK has insisted children have "never" been targeted in Gaza and said Hamas should be blamed for every death. Tzipi Hotovely was challenged on the deaths of innocent civilians by Wilfred Frost after two British surgeons, who have worked in Gaza during the Israeli bombardment, filmed video blogs for Sky News. He asked how many children it is "legitimate and proportionate" to kill, including those being treated in hospital, in order to kill Hamas terrorists. Follow live Israel-Iran updates: Ms Hotovely said Israel was "not there to kill anyone" and "never targets civilians", with its attacks complying with international law. Dr Victoria Rose, a consultant plastic surgeon, who has worked in Gaza hospitals for three separate periods, previously told Sky she felt the number of children coming through the doors was "barbaric". She said there were "more innocent children, let alone adults, that are dying per Hamas scalp that you see". Asked about her account, Ms Hotovely said: "We never targeted the children, it's Hamas that needs to be blamed…But they need to blame Hamas for creating this reality for the Palestinian people." She added: "For every life lost in Gaza, you need to blame Hamas for committing the crimes on 7 October and for committing the war crimes by using people as human shields." Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted 251 people in the October 7 2023 attack. The group is still holding 50 hostages, with less than half of them believed to be alive. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, which has said women and children make up more than half of the dead. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Ms Hotovely said Israel is "not interested in wars", adding: "So we are asking a very simple request from the international community - pressure Hamas to release our hostages and we will have a better condition to get to a ceasefire."
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
'Mass Layoff' Provision in Trump Bill Sparks Alarm: 'Deeply Concerning'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A provision in the Senate budget bill would allow for millions of dollars to go directly toward President Donald Trump and the administration's ability to lay off federal workers without the consent of Congress. It is a move that Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, called "deeply, deeply concerning." The provision, written by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would give $100 million to the Office of Budget Management (OMB), according to Government Executive. The office is run by Project 2025 author Russ Vought, a proponent of mass government layoffs, which are a central tenet of Project 2025. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Olinsky referenced the lawsuits by federal employees fired by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, telling Newsweek: "[This bill is] exactly the kind of thing that the president has been trying to do, I would say, illegally, as he seeks to shut down departments or agencies, or limit [agencies] to a handful of staff down from 1000s and do large mass layoffs and other kinds of cuts to entire functions or programs." Those in favor of the bill have said: "Any president should have the ability to clear the waste he or she has identified without obstruction." Newsweek contacted Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, via email for comment. Why It Matters Many of the people affected by mass federal layoffs initiated by DOGE at the start of Trump's second term are now in court as they were made without congressional approval. The provision would allow for federal employees to be fired with little to no legal recourse. Olinsky told Newsweek that it would lead to current and future distrust in the government by federal workers. Federal work used to be a lesser paid but significantly more stable line of work. If the provision passes, federal work will be seen as a much less realistic plan for long-term employment and will result in bright and capable Americans choosing to work in the private sector. What To Know The provision of the bill, which is the Senate's version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House, appears in a section about government spending and reorganization by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It would revitalize a provision last used in 1984 that allows the president to reorganize the federal government. However, Olinsky explained to Newsweek that it differs from the 1984 provision in one significant way. "Those previous reorganization authorities that were granted to the president still had a role for Congress," he said. Congress then had a certain amount of time to either approve or disapprove of the plan, and that determined whether the president's plan could go into effect. "In the current reorganization language, it says that most of the statute that's currently on the books, or that was on the books through 1984, will not apply," Olinsky said. "And it basically says the president can put together a reorganization plan, and as long as it's making government smaller, it is deemed approved. "So, there would be no further review by Congress, no further action. It would simply be automatic. It is approved by this language without [Congress] having seen it first. That is dramatically concerning to me." Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Olinsky added: "The executive actions that the Trump administration has been taking are absolutely taking Project 2025, the most extreme parts of it, and putting them into effect. And, actually going much further in many cases." Project 2025 says that the president should be able to " employees." It speaks in broad terms about federal employees, whom its authors see as part of the "federal bureaucracy." "Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people, but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government "of, by, and for" the people," Project 2025 says. Olinsky said that people fired as a result of DOGE cuts could continue their suits in court, but anyone fired under the new provision would not have a case against the government. He said the only means of legal recourse for fired employees would be if mass firings reduced the government's ability to monitor enforcement functions. For example, if the White House fired every member of an agency that oversaw labor standards, someone could potentially sue and say their firing undermined government enforcement work. Other critics of this move say it directly undermines Congress' ability to govern, as government spending is one of Congress' primary responsibilities. Olinsky said there is a chance the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision defies the Byrd Rule, which says that all reconciliation packages have to focus on budget issues and cannot stray into other parts of government. Olinsky believes the provision violates the Byrd Rule, but whether enough members of the Senate and/or the parliamentarian believe the same is "an open question," he said. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, told Newsweek: "This [bill] would basically give [Trump] carte blanche to refashion the entire federal government in ways that he likes. "Now, even under this language, it basically means you have to make the government smaller, not larger. But there's a lot of playing you could do to assist with [Trump's] priorities and stifle functions of government that he just doesn't like. "This should be deeply, deeply concerning to anyone." The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: "This provision would reestablish the authority for a president to reorganize government as long as these plans do not result in an increase in federal agencies and the plan does not result in an increase in federal spending." What Happens Next The House does not have a similar rule, so if the provision remains in the Senate version of the bill, it cannot be removed through a parliamentarian complaint to the Bird Rule by the House.
