The Importance of Fair Share Contributions in NATO and Who Isn’t Paying Up

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stands as one of the most enduring and crucial alliances in modern history. Founded in 1949, NATO was established to provide collective security against the Soviet Union and to promote democratic values. Its significance extends beyond mere military cooperation; it symbolizes the unity and shared commitment of its member countries to protect each other and maintain global peace and stability.

One of the fundamental principles agreed upon by NATO members at the 2006 summit in Lativa is the commitment to spend at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. This agreement was made to ensure that all members contribute fairly to the alliance's collective security, allowing NATO to operate effectively without placing an undue burden on any single member.

However, the reality has been different. The United States has consistently spent more on defense than any other NATO member, often exceeding the 2% GDP benchmark by a significant margin. This disproportionate contribution has raised concerns about fairness and sustainability. While the U.S. has been shouldering a larger share of the financial burden, some NATO members have fallen short of their commitments, redirecting funds towards domestic priorities such as universal healthcare and childcare—services that we lack in the United States. Maybe if we didn’t pay so much on defense to pick up the slack, we could use those funds on such pressing issues domestically, too.

But why has the U.S. historically ended up paying more than almost all other members and who isn’t pulling their weight?