Key Points:

• The U.S. is NATO’s largest financial contributor.
• Trump proposes a “two-tier” NATO, limiting U.S. protection for non-contributing members.
• A Trump victory could increase pressure on NATO members to meet spending obligations.
• Also: The smart money is looking past this election and towards what may be the biggest investment opportunity of our lifetime. Learn about ‘The Next Nvidia’ today to see why. 

Austin Smith and Michael Muir discuss the implications of the upcoming U.S. election on NATO, noting that NATO is primarily a European-centric defense organization, with the U.S. as its largest financial contributor. They explore how the different stances of candidates Trump and Harris might impact NATO. Trump has been critical of NATO, particularly regarding members not meeting their defense spending obligations, and has hinted at a two-tier NATO where non-compliant members might not receive U.S. protection. Michael suggests that while this rhetoric may be more about campaign posturing, it indicates a potential increase in pressure on NATO members under a Trump presidency.

Transcript:

So NATO, we’re here in the U.S. having this conversation.

NATO is very much a European-centric defense organization, although the U.S. is by far the biggest financial contributor in terms of absolute dollars.

It’s become a much bigger talking point domestically.

And I’m thinking, of course, about the upcoming election.

So we have Trump and now candidate Harris having different stances on NATO.

Trump has made very public comments about NATO, and we can see how he postured with NATO as president.

So can we talk a little bit about what a Trump victory might mean for NATO and then vice versa, what a Harris victory might mean for NATO?

Sure. Yeah. So when Trump was running for president back in 2016,

He made a lot of the fact NATO members, a lot of NATO members were not paying their fair share.

And at the time, you know, that that did get a lot of attention because it was demonstrably true that most NATO members weren’t meeting their defense spending obligations.

There was, of course, some nuance and context to that, but that’s not something we typically associate with Trump, especially on the campaign trail.

So he remains skeptical of NATO, and he has talked publicly of almost this idea of a two-tier NATO.

For members that aren’t meeting their obligations, they cannot expect the US to really saying the US will not protect any members that aren’t paying their way.

Of course, that is a clear violation of Article five of the NATO treaty in 1949.

So I don’t know how seriously we should take that kind of rhetoric.

I don’t know if that’s just kind of playing up to the crowd on the campaign trail,

But it is just suggesting that he’s going to put a lot more pressure on NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations.

And if we just look at the rest of the ticket, J.D. Vance is also quite outspoken in criticism towards NATO members not meeting their spending obligations.

And then looking at the other side, well, we can get to the other side in a moment.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.