Trump's NATO Visit: Dramatic Shift to Unity?

June 30th, 2025

Azzy Xiang

Trump’s June visit to the NATO summit in The Hague was different from the tension of his previous meetings. In contrast to the meetings of his first term, where Trump openly questioned the value of organizations like NATO, threatening to withdraw U.S. support, this year’s summit had an unprecedented consensus on more defense spending and on a more “friendly” attitude. NATO members, with the exception of Spain, pledged to raise their defense spending target from 2 to 5% of GDP in 10 years.

Trump called this a “monumental win for the United States, for Europe, and for Western civilization,” claiming the boost would add more than $1 trillion annually to collective defense budgets. The agreement was widely seen as a diplomatic victory for Trump, This is because Trump has long criticized European allies for “not paying their fair share” and has threatened to refuse to aid those who “fell short.”

Trump’s prior approach included questioning the alliance’s mutual defense guarantee and encouraging Russia to act aggressively toward under-spending members. This year, however, he reaffirmed his commitment to the article behind mutual defense, stating, “I stand with it. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.” Yet, it’s important to note that earlier, he left some ambiguity about the U.S. stance on NATO.

The summit also came with Trump trying to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran after U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites. This intervention, alongside the NATO deal, allowed Trump to cast himself as a global peacemaker, at least in the moment. In fact, some supporters even suggested he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, the ambitious targets raised questions about the feasibility for many countries in Europe, including concerns about engaging in an arms race and diverting of resources from other priorities, like fighting climate change.

Extemp Analysis By: Ty Tan

Based on the contemporary nature of a topic like this, you’d likely get a status quo change question like:

Question: To what extent has Trump’s attendance at the recent NATO summit affected trans-Atlantic relations?

Background:

For your background, I think what’s important to emphasize is a 3 key things:

The NATO Alliance as of recently (and its relation to trans-Atlantic relations)
What Trump has done to hurt it recently
Why Trump’s change of heart affects the relationship

Since this question is a reverse of the prior set squo, I think the analysis could be really interesting if you set up a strong conflict answer.

Answer: Major Extent, reshaping regional defense

P1: Raising spending

P2: Shifting European Trust
P3: Shifting toward a transactional relationship

I think there’s a lot of positives and negatives here to work with when addressing the “to what extent.” Be clear on how you answer and try to make each point distinct, especially since this question can overlap with points. I would love to see and hear about how this works for anyone who tries it.