NATO Accelerates Military Buildup to Reduce Dependence on US Amid Trump Pressure

In early May 2026, President Donald Trump ordered 5,000 troops out of Germany and warned that "we're going to cut way down" across Europe [1]. The withdrawal — roughly one-seventh of the 38,000 U.S. service members stationed in Germany — was the most concrete step yet in a pressure campaign that has forced NATO's European members into the fastest rearmament since the Cold War [2]. But the question hanging over capitals from Berlin to Warsaw is whether Europe can actually build what it is promising, fast enough to matter.

The Spending Surge, by the Numbers

The raw spending trajectory is striking. In 2014, when NATO allies pledged at the Wales Summit to spend 2% of GDP on defense, only three members met the target. By 2024, that number had risen to 23. In 2025, all 32 allies crossed the 2% threshold for the first time in the alliance's history, with European NATO members and Canada collectively investing more than $574 billion — a 20% increase over the previous year [3].

Source: NATO

Data as of Jun 1, 2025CSV

Germany's turnaround has been the most dramatic. Its defense expenditure grew 24% year-on-year to $114 billion in 2025, pushing its military burden above 2% of GDP for the first time since reunification, reaching 2.3% [4]. Spain's defense budget surged 50% to $40.2 billion, bringing it above 2% for the first time since 1994 [1]. On current trajectories, Europe's combined defense spending is set to approach $750 billion annually by 2030 [1].

Source: NATO

Data as of Jun 1, 2025CSV

Yet the goalposts have already moved. At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, allies committed to spending 5% of GDP on defense and security by 2035, with at least 3.5% allocated strictly to military expenditure [3]. Trump has pushed for the 5% figure publicly, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has endorsed the higher targets as necessary given the threat environment [5].

What Money Cannot Quickly Buy

Spending more is the easy part. Translating budgets into actual military capability is where Europe's challenge becomes acute. Decades of underinvestment have left European NATO members dependent on the United States for critical enablers that cannot be replicated overnight.

The disparities are stark. Europe fields roughly 35 airborne command-and-control platforms compared to over 120 for the United States. In air-to-air refueling — essential for projecting air power — Europe has approximately 50 tanker aircraft against nearly 450 American ones [6]. Strategic airlift capacity, integrated air and missile defense, long-range precision strike, and space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) all remain areas where European dependence on Washington is near-total [7].

Source: CSIS / CEPA

Data as of Jan 1, 2026CSV

A May 2026 study by a group of German defense experts, co-authored by former Airbus CEO Thomas Enders, estimated that achieving meaningful European defense autonomy would require an additional €50 billion ($59 billion) per year over the next decade — roughly €500 billion total. The study identified ten critical capability gaps, with air defense alone requiring an estimated €50 billion, autonomous drone systems €30 billion, and ground-based precision strike €20-30 billion [8]. "A high degree of European independence can be achieved within a few years, at a cost that can be financed," Enders argued, noting the sum represents approximately 0.25% of European GDP [8].

The timeline, however, is ambitious. The study projected "substantial progress" in three to five years, with "far-reaching autonomy" achievable within five to ten years — but only if pursued as a unified European political priority [8].

The Industrial Bottleneck

Even with unlimited budgets, Europe's defense industrial base cannot produce what is needed at the required pace. The continent's arms manufacturers were optimized for peacetime efficiency — lean production runs, just-in-time supply chains, minimal stockpiles. Reconfiguring them for sustained high-volume output is a multi-year process.

There has been progress. EU ammunition production capacity rose from approximately 300,000 rounds per year in 2022 to an estimated 2 million by the end of 2025 — a pace that exceeds peacetime growth by a factor of three [9]. But bottlenecks persist. Shortages in propellants, explosives, and miniature jet engines constrain production. Critical components such as semiconductors, explosives, and specialized metals remain dependent on global suppliers [10].

In Germany, domestic defense orders roughly doubled between 2025 and early 2026, yet industrial production increased only marginally over the same period — a gap that illustrates the difference between ordering weapons and manufacturing them [10]. European defense industry revenue growth is forecast to exceed 10% annually [11], but analysts at Oliver Wyman have warned that doubling defense spending could trigger capacity shortages across the sector [12].

The fragmentation of Europe's defense market compounds the problem. The EU has 27 member states with separate procurement processes, duplicative programs, and competing national champions. A March 2025 European Commission white paper identified industrial fragmentation, under-investment, and slow output as the three principal weaknesses in Europe's defense readiness [10]. From 2025 to 2027, the EU allocated €1.5 billion to support defense industry scaling — a sum that critics note is a rounding error against the hundreds of billions in planned procurement [9].

What the US Is Actually Withdrawing

The immediate trigger for Europe's urgency is not hypothetical. Trump's May 2026 order to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany followed European refusal to support U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran. When European allies declined to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Trump called NATO "useless" and "cowards" [1]. He singled out specific allies: "Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible. Absolutely horrible" [2].

Beyond troop numbers, the more significant loss may be capabilities. The planned deployment of a long-range fires battalion equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons to Germany — the first stationing of ground-based long-range missiles in the country since the Cold War — will no longer proceed [13]. Those missiles were intended to counter Russian systems stationed in Kaliningrad. U.S. stockpiles of Tomahawks are themselves rapidly depleting because of the Iran conflict, raising questions about whether the weapons would have been available regardless [13].

NATO allies also face delays in receiving U.S.-made Patriot air defense interceptors, HIMARS munitions, and NASAMS missiles — systems that are in short supply partly because of competing demands from the Iran theater and ongoing support to Ukraine [13]. The United States maintains approximately 76,000 service members across Europe, a figure established as a congressional baseline below which the White House cannot unilaterally reduce [14]. But Trump has signaled that even this floor is negotiable, telling reporters that withdrawals could extend to Spain and Italy [2].

Senior U.S. defense officials have informed European allies that Washington intends to step back from its role as NATO's primary conventional defense provider beyond 2027, prioritizing the Indo-Pacific and a potential confrontation with China [15]. This represents the first time since NATO's founding that the United States has openly signaled such a structural shift.

The Steelman for Trump's Pressure

The uncomfortable reality for Trump's critics is that his coercive approach has produced results that decades of polite diplomacy did not. Between 2014 and 2017 — the period between the Wales pledge and Trump's first inauguration — average non-U.S. NATO spending barely moved, rising from 1.4% to 1.5% of GDP [16]. During Trump's first term, spending rose modestly to around 1.7%. After Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Trump's return to office with escalated rhetoric, the acceleration was dramatic: from 1.7% in 2022 to 2.3% in 2025 [3].

NATO Secretary General Rutte acknowledged this dynamic in May 2026, stating that "Europeans have gotten the message" from Trump on defense [5]. Douglas Lute, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, offered a more nuanced assessment: "A stronger European pillar of NATO is good for America. The problem is that if they step up because they can't trust us, that at the same time is not good for America" [17].

Proponents of the pressure campaign argue that the 2% target was always a floor, not a ceiling, and that European free-riding on American security was strategically unsustainable as U.S. attention shifted toward China. The new 5% target, while ambitious, reflects an acknowledgment that the security environment has fundamentally changed since 2014.

Critics counter that transactional coercion damages the trust that makes collective defense credible. Withdrawing troops and canceling missile deployments as punishment for policy disagreements — rather than in response to reduced threats — sends a signal to Moscow that NATO cohesion can be fractured through American domestic politics.

The Fracture Lines Within

NATO's unity is also challenged from within. Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has repeatedly disrupted alliance consensus. Budapest vetoed the NATO-Ukraine Council at the defense ministerial level and has maintained closer ties to Moscow than any other alliance member [18]. Hungary argues it is exercising sovereignty within the alliance framework, not undermining it — and points to its meeting the 2% GDP target since 2023, with a 2024 budget of HUF 1,800 billion (2.1% of GDP) [18].

Turkey presents a different challenge. Ankara's tensions with NATO stem from diverging threat perceptions, disputes over Kurdish groups, and its purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems. Turkey and Hungary together held up Sweden's NATO accession for two years after the 2022 application, despite broad alliance support [19]. Academic analysis identifies five persistent drivers of Turkey-NATO friction: diverging interests, differing threat perceptions, identity and value differences, domestic political considerations, and Turkey's pursuit of greater bargaining power within the alliance [19].

These internal divisions raise a question about the credibility of any European collective deterrent. A defense posture built on consensus can be paralyzed by individual members with veto power and divergent strategic interests. France and Germany may commit hundreds of billions to rearmament, but if Hungary blocks joint action at the ministerial level, the practical utility of that spending is diminished.

The Indo-Pacific Equation

If Europe does achieve greater self-sufficiency, the strategic consequences extend well beyond the Atlantic. The stated rationale for U.S. retrenchment from Europe is to free resources for the Indo-Pacific, where China's military buildup poses what Pentagon planners consider the defining challenge of the coming decades [15].

In theory, a self-sufficient European pillar allows the United States to concentrate naval and air assets in the Western Pacific without leaving a security vacuum in Europe. NATO members themselves have acknowledged that European and Indo-Pacific security are interconnected: China's provision of dual-use items to Russia has sustained Moscow's defense industrial base, while North Korean munitions and ballistic missiles have replenished Russian weapons stocks [20].

But allies in the Indo-Pacific — Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines — are watching the European drawdown closely. If the message they take from NATO's experience is that U.S. security commitments are conditional on political alignment with the sitting president's priorities, the reassurance value of American alliances diminishes globally. A Taiwan contingency could devastate European economies, with estimates of up to $10 trillion in lost global GDP [20], making the idea of neatly separable theaters an analytical convenience rather than a strategic reality.

The tension is structural: a more capable Europe may indeed free American resources for Asia, but the manner in which that transition occurs — through coercion and troop withdrawals rather than coordinated strategy — risks signaling broader American disengagement to adversaries and allies alike.

What Comes Next

European leaders have framed the current moment as an inflection point. French President Emmanuel Macron declared that "Europeans are taking their destiny into their own hands" [1]. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz has unveiled a military doctrine identifying Russia as the primary threat, with plans to build Europe's strongest conventional military by the mid-2030s — a force of roughly 460,000 troops [17]. Poland continues to strengthen NATO's eastern flank with one of the highest defense spending rates in the alliance.

The gap between ambition and capability, however, remains wide. Europe lacks independent long-range strike capacity at scale, has no continental missile defense architecture, and depends on American satellites for much of its military intelligence. Building these capabilities requires not just money but institutional coordination across dozens of sovereign states with different threat perceptions, industrial interests, and political timelines.

The next three to five years will determine whether Europe's rearmament is a sustained strategic transformation or a spending surge that dissipates once the immediate political pressure fades. The $750 billion question is not whether Europe can afford to build a military that doesn't need America. It is whether 32 democracies, several of them internally divided, can agree on what that military should look like — and build it before they need it.