Defense spending pledges face Trump’s scrutiny

NATO faces a key test of its credibility and future performance this week as leaders meet in Turkey, with new targets for European defense spending under unprecedented scrutiny from the White House.

This week’s summit, which begins on Tuesday, will test whether Europe can turn a large budget into military power quickly enough to keep President Donald Trump engaged, while preparing for a future in which Washington plays a smaller role in continental security.

Last year’s summit in The Hague was seen as a success after partners committed to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, including 3.5% on core defense needs and 1.5% on comprehensive security needs.

But this year’s conference in Ankara is expected to shift the debate from promises to implementation. These include questions about procurement, industrial capacity, support for Ukraine and the political architecture of what the Trump administration has called “NATO 3.0.”

“This is really a NATO summit where NATO is moving from burden-sharing to burden-shifting,” Ulrike Franke, policy fellow 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 drones, air defense and industrial power.

Here are five big questions facing NATO leaders.

European governments have widely accepted that they need to spend more, be more productive and commit to their own security, following pressure from the White House.

But NATO has been organized by American power for 77 years, making the issue as much a political question as a military one, said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

If Washington retreats, or does not go, Europe is facing a difficult question, he told reporters at a press conference last week – how to organize defense without the US at the center.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is focused on keeping Trump engaged while pushing forward with plans to shift the burden. But Bergmann said there has been little discussion of a “plan B” if the US decides it doesn’t want to remain heavily involved.

In Europe, Franke said, another key is transparency. If Washington intends to withdraw troops, assets or capabilities, allies need a road map and a timeline. That could prove difficult for Trump, whose approach to allies is often unpredictable.

Europeans will also have a desire to put priorities before the people, especially in terms of defense spending, according to Franke. Spain and France are already facing criticism for their defense budgets. Meanwhile the UK and France are facing serious financial problems despite recognizing the need to do more.

NATO’s spending pressure has already changed in the European defense sector. Poland, the Baltic countries, and the Nordic countries moved quickly, reflecting their proximity to Russia. Major economies have moved slowly, however, under financial pressure and domestic politics.

“Now the money is in the system, but we must be able to use it,” said Franke. “Europe needs to be able to produce things.”

Europe’s defense industry remains disorganized and shackled by supply chains, bureaucracy, labor shortages and years of underinvestment. Collective purchasing, in theory, can reduce costs, improve synergies, and create scale. Basically, governments are still looking for contracts, jobs, and tax money at home.

Franke pointed to Franco-German defense projects as an example of how national political incentives can delay cooperation, even if joint production makes strategic sense.

Ukraine is expected to be central to Ankara, with the debate centering on long-term military support, Kyiv’s defense industry and what NATO can learn from the country after more than four years of total war.

It comes as Russia suffers heavy losses on the battlefield. “The data shows [that] the Russians are doing very badly in 2026,” said Seth Jones, president of the Department of Defense and Security at CSIS, referring to the increase in casualties and land loss.

Kyiv has also increased drone strikes and long-range missiles inside Russia, targeting energy, military and transport infrastructure, reflecting progress Ukraine has made in developing domestic strike capabilities.

Franke said NATO needs to stop seeing Ukraine only as a recipient of Western aid. Kyiv is now a hotbed of military innovation, especially in drones, counter-drone systems and battlefield data on how to fight Russia.

“Ukraine has cards in drones and counter-drone systems,” Franke said.

That would shift the NATO conversation from how the alliance is helping Ukraine to how Ukraine is helping NATO prepare for modern warfare.

The summit follows months of disagreements between Washington and its European allies, including Trump’s frustration with what he sees as insufficient European support during the Iran conflict.

Franke said that Iran can be seen in Ankara. This could include a debate about possible European contributions to maritime security and any peace arrangement, including efforts to sweep mines. But he said such contributions are likely to be limited and partly symbolic, and the Europeans are not yet fully on board with Washington’s approach.

Franke said European unity would matter if Trump singled out countries for spending money, although that is difficult when perceptions of threats vary widely across Europe.

There is also the question of future arrangements. The NATO summits were not annual events, but they have been every year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Bergmann said he would not be surprised if this was the last NATO summit of the Trump presidency, amid uncertainty over next year’s summit in Albania and the 2028 US election calendar.

That might raise the bar. If this summit is “the last straw,” the message Trump chooses to send at this NATO summit could be important beyond Turkey.

Turkey’s role as host adds another layer of complexity.

Like previous participating countries, Turkey is likely to use this conference to put its own security issues and the defense industry on the agenda.

For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a successful summit could show that Turkey is in the middle, avoid major political disruptions and bolster Ankara’s case for defense procurement as European military spending rises.

“Procurement of defense equipment [and] Legitimization of the regime is a key objective from Turkey,” said Bergmann, noting the backsliding of democracy under Erdogan.

Turkey may also worry about being excluded as EU channels spend more protection money on European producers, adding that because Turkey is in NATO but not the EU, access to future contracts and joint projects would be a priority.

As NATO tries to keep the US involved, arm Europe quickly and support Ukraine, Turkey will probably be pressing its case: any new construction of European security still needs Ankara at the table.