After the Hague Win, Trump Returns to Ankara to Force NATO to Deliver

Introduction: the report card NATO was dreading

A year after The Hague, the reckoning has arrived

American president Donald Trump flies out this Monday evening for Ankara, site of the annual NATO summit, with a crystal-clear objective: force allies to honor the massive budgetary pledge he extracted from them last year at The Hague. The American ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, summed up the presidential expectation bluntly: "President Trump fully expects all allies to mobilize immediately and commit to the path toward 5%, with urgency."

This firm tone surprises no one who has followed this administration since its first term. But it confirms a reality even its harshest critics must acknowledge: Trump's pressure produced, in barely a year, a budgetary shift that decades of quiet diplomacy had never managed to extract from Europeans.

Researcher Luke Coffey calls it a "first report card"

Luke Coffey, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, describes this Ankara summit as the "first report card" since the commitment made at The Hague last year. His phrase perfectly captures what's at stake: this summit isn't just another diplomatic gathering, it's a credibility test of whether Western budgetary promises actually translate into action.

I'll say it without reservation: on this specific file, Trump is right to demand accountability. An Alliance that promises and doesn't deliver loses all credibility against Russia, and Europe has delayed its own rearmament long enough to deserve this constant pressure.

What Trump secured last year at The Hague

A 5% of GDP target over a decade

At last year's Hague summit, NATO countries agreed to a broad target of raising their defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade, split between 3.5% for core defense spending and the rest for related expenses such as infrastructure. According to Associated Press analysis, Trump was the decisive factor behind this ambitious target.

An achievement even his detractors acknowledge

This result, achieved within a single year of sustained pressure, constitutes one of the most significant shifts in NATO's budgetary architecture since its founding. Few American presidents, regardless of party, can claim such a collective pivot from European allies in so little time.

I gladly credit Trump for this result, even though his diplomatic style often grates on me otherwise. The proof is in the numbers: a 5% of GDP target, considered unrealistic just two years ago, became the Alliance's collective norm in record time.

Erdogan's central role as host and ally

A bilateral meeting between two close leaders

Trump plans a separate bilateral meeting with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, described in the Associated Press article as a close friend of the American president. This personal relationship, built over the years despite occasional tensions between Washington and Ankara, plays a facilitating role in organizing this complex summit.

Turkey, a strategic host at the crossroads of every file

Ankara's selection as the summit's location is no accident: Turkey sits at the crossroads of nearly every hot topic on this gathering's agenda, from the war in Ukraine to the Iranian crisis to the Syrian situation, giving Erdogan a diplomatic role disproportionate to his budgetary weight within the Alliance.

I remain cautious about this personal closeness between Trump and Erdogan, whose domestic democratic record remains questionable. But I recognize that his geographic and diplomatic position makes Turkey hard to bypass for this kind of multidimensional summit.

Ukraine at the heart of the Ankara discussions

A war entering its fifth year

The war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year, is expected to take center stage in the summit's discussions, with the White House confirming a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday. This meeting follows a July 4 phone call between Trump, Zelensky, and Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Allied pressure to strengthen support for Kyiv

After last month's G7 summit in France, where Trump expressed satisfaction with his counterparts' unanimous support for his interim deal to end the war with Iran, several leaders used the occasion to try to convince Trump to strengthen security assistance to Ukraine against Russia.

I continue to believe that Zelensky remains one of the most courageous figures of our era, and I sincerely hope this allied pressure pays off in Ankara. Ukraine cannot afford to have American diplomacy spread thin across too many simultaneous files.

The Iranian file that also demands a seat at the table

An interim deal praised at the G7

Trump is also continuing to manage the diplomatic fallout of the war against Iran, whose negotiated interim deal received a favorable reception from his G7 counterparts last month. This file nonetheless remains a persistent source of friction between Washington and certain NATO members who see the American handling of this conflict as too unilateral.

A parallel meeting with the Syrian president

On the sidelines of the summit, Trump also plans a meeting with Syrian president Ahmad al-Sharaa, former leader of an Islamist insurgent group whose forces overthrew former president Bashar al-Assad. The White House has not specified clear objectives for this discussion, and al-Sharaa himself has expressed no interest in an expanded Syrian role against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I note with some skepticism this lack of clearly stated objectives for the meeting with al-Sharaa. On a file as volatile as post-Assad Syria, diplomatic improvisation carries risks that Washington should better anticipate.

Democratic criticism of Trump's approach

Senator Shaheen says the administration misreads the Russian threat

Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen sharply criticized the administration's approach, stating that the "NATO 3.0" concept championed by Trump "fails to understand, as this administration has consistently failed to understand, the threat that Putin and Russia pose to Europe and, by extension, to the United States."

A Congress that values transatlantic alliances differently

Shaheen also stressed that European allies "are our best allies, our best trading partners, they are essential to our national security, to our economic success, and we need to encourage those relationships," adding that "that's part of what Congress understands and the administration doesn't seem to understand."

I find this criticism partially justified: Trump's budgetary pressure works, but his sometimes cavalier style toward historic allies risks eroding a transatlantic trust that takes decades to rebuild once broken.

The controversial concept of NATO 3.0

Europe called on to take charge of its own security

The Trump administration promotes the concept of "NATO 3.0," which envisions Europe shouldering a growing share of its own security needs while the United States redirects its attention elsewhere, a strategy laid out earlier this year by Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby before NATO defense ministers.

A six-month review of American forces in Europe

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last month a six-month review of American forces deployed in Europe, a move that fuels uncertainty among European allies about the consistency of the American military commitment on the continent over the medium term.

I understand the strategic logic behind NATO 3.0, but I fear that too rapid a reduction of the American presence in Europe, before European capabilities are fully operational, could create a dangerous window of vulnerability against Russia.

The confusion of Trump's military announcements

Troops sent, then withdrawn, within weeks

Earlier this year, Trump caused confusion by announcing the deployment of 5,000 American troops to Poland, just weeks after ordering the withdrawal of the same number of forces from the European continent. This rapid reversal illustrates the strategic readability problems European allies sometimes face with American military decisions.

A contradictory signal at the worst possible time

This kind of reversal, occurring precisely as Europe tries to gauge the long-term reliability of the American commitment, complicates military planning for European allies who must contend with an administration whose tactical decisions can shift within a matter of weeks.

I believe this unpredictability, while it can sometimes serve as tactical leverage, ultimately costs a great deal in long-term strategic credibility. Allies need predictability to plan their own defense, not weekly reversals.

The Greenland threat that still looms

Arctic Sentry, an indirect response to Trump's territorial ambitions

NATO launched the military exercise "Arctic Sentry" earlier this year, officially aimed at countering Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic region, but also seen as an indirect way of responding to Trump's repeated threats about annexing Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

A territorial claim that embarrasses European allies

Trump has kept up his insistence on the strategic necessity for the United States to acquire Greenland, a position that deeply embarrasses European allies and complicates the Alliance's displayed cohesion at a moment when unity against Russia should take precedence over any other territorial consideration.

I consider these Greenland ambitions one of the most problematic aspects of this presidency: they divert attention from an otherwise positive rearmament effort, and needlessly undermine the trust of a historic European ally, Denmark.

European experts weigh in on persistent dependence

Liana Fix, of the Council on Foreign Relations, points to an uncomfortable reality

Liana Fix, senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, sums up a reality few Europeans like to admit publicly: "that's the reality for most Europeans," who remain far from able to defend themselves without the United States, "even though they're starting to build all of that up."

A rearmament effort still far from complete

This persistent dependence, despite the real budgetary progress made since The Hague, is a reminder that higher spending doesn't instantly translate into operational military capability. Building an autonomous defense industry takes years, if not decades, well beyond the electoral cycle of a single American presidency.

I believe this persistent dependence is neither shameful nor inevitable, but simply a structural fact that Europe must face with clear eyes rather than through premature and hardly credible declarations of strategic independence.

Why Trump's firmness remains, on this file, justified

An Alliance made stronger through constant pressure

Despite legitimate criticism of his style and its diplomatic side effects, Trump's insistence on defense spending has objectively strengthened NATO's collective capacity to deter Russia, a result traditional diplomacy had failed to produce over several decades of quiet negotiation.

A precedent that must now translate into concrete action

The real test of Ankara won't be merely rhetorical: it will consist of verifying whether allies actually turn their budgetary commitments into tangible military capabilities, rather than simple accounting percentages presented to satisfy Washington without substantive change.

I maintain my nuanced position on Trump: a necessary evil for the West on the military front, whose budgetary firmness deserves recognition, even though his generally chaotic diplomatic approach continues to worry me on other files.

What China and Russia are watching from this summit

A demonstration of Western cohesion worth watching closely

Moscow and Beijing will watch the outcome of the Ankara summit closely, seeking to gauge whether NATO's internal tensions, between American pressure and European reluctance, amount to a real weakening of Western cohesion or merely a communications exercise with no major strategic consequence.

An opportunity to demonstrate the strength of collective deterrence

For the West, this summit represents a valuable opportunity to show its adversaries that despite real internal disagreements over method, collective determination to invest in common defense remains intact against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

I believe the worst thing the West could do at this stage would be to let an internal division show that its adversaries could exploit. Disagreements over method must stay internal; the firmness displayed collectively must remain unbroken.

The delicate balance between firmness and transatlantic cohesion

The risk of pushing allies too hard

While Trump's budgetary firmness has produced undeniable results, it also carries the risk of pushing certain European allies toward a sense of humiliation or resentment that could, over time, weaken the Alliance's political cohesion beyond the budget figures alone.

A diplomacy that must combine pressure with mutual respect

The challenge for Washington in Ankara will be to maintain this effective pressure without publicly humiliating allies who have, on the whole, made considerable budgetary efforts since The Hague, a delicate diplomatic balance the American administration has not always managed well in the past.

I believe method matters almost as much as outcome on this file. Achieving real budgetary results while publicly humiliating the allies who produced them risks undermining, over time, the goodwill needed for the next phase of European rearmament.

What the Western taxpayer should watch after Ankara

Budgetary promises still to be verified on the ground

The jump from 2% to 5% of GDP in defense spending means nothing until national budgets voted in each European capital translate that commitment into firm contracts, running factories, and rebuilt ammunition stockpiles, a process that will take years, not months.

The Ankara summit will be judged, a year from now, not on the communiqués signed but on the actual trajectory of national spending, a test several European capitals have already repeatedly failed since 2014 despite repeated commitments to NATO.

The risk of a mere political communications exercise

The Alliance's recent history is full of grandly announced targets quietly abandoned once the media spotlight fades, and nothing guarantees that the 5% figure will escape this classic trap of multilateral diplomacy.

It is precisely for this reason that Trump's constant pressure, however uncomfortable for European allies, retains a functional usefulness: it prevents the Alliance from slipping back into the budgetary complacency that preceded the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

I believe the real test of Ankara won't play out in summit speeches, but in the finance laws voted in Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Madrid over the next twelve months. Without that rigorous follow-through, the 5% figure will remain a mere line in a communiqué, as symbolic as it is useless against the Russian threat.

Conclusion: Ankara, a credibility test for the entire Alliance

A summit that extends well beyond the budget figures alone

The Ankara summit is not simply an accounting check on the defense spending promised at The Hague: it determines the credibility of the entire Western deterrence architecture against a Russia that has been waging its war in Ukraine for more than four years, with no tangible sign of strategic retreat.

A firmness that must continue, but with discernment

While Trump's pressure on military spending deserves credit as a tangible success for Western security, how that pressure plays out in Ankara, between necessary firmness and respect for allies who have already delivered considerable efforts, will determine whether this summit strengthens or weakens transatlantic cohesion in the months ahead.

I'll close with a simple conviction: Trump's budgetary firmness toward NATO will remain one of the rare files where I credit him with real strategic merit, provided this pressure continues to serve transatlantic cohesion rather than fracture it for the benefit of our common adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my limits

I am a columnist and geopolitical analyst, not a diplomat or an expert in NATO's budgetary negotiations. This commentary draws on reports from specialized press agencies and public statements from American and European officials, not on direct access to the Ankara summit's internal discussions.

My acknowledged bias on this specific file is to credit Trump's military and budgetary firmness toward NATO, consistent with this series' nuanced editorial line, while acknowledging the real risks his sometimes blunt diplomatic style poses to transatlantic cohesion over the long term.

My method for this commentary

This piece draws on an Associated Press analysis published on July 6, 2026, cross-referenced with statements from officials cited in that same analysis, along with public data on NATO's defense spending. No speculation about the exact content of the summit's private discussions has been presented as established fact.

Sources

Primary sources

Associated Press — Trump won big spending promises from NATO last year. This week in Turkey, he'll try to enforce them, July 6, 2026

Anadolu Agency — Factbox: NATO defense spending, where allies stand ahead of Ankara summit, July 1, 2026

Secondary sources

The New York Times — Opinion: NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, July 5, 2026

Reuters — Aerospace & Defense

Wikipedia — 2026 Ankara NATO summit

Forbes — What defense leaders will discuss at the 2026 NATO summit, July 1, 2026