All issues · Global Affairs · No. 37

Europe and the Transatlantic Alliance

Is the postwar alliance with Europe an asset worth its cost, or a subsidy that outlived its purpose?

NATO and the broader relationship with Europe have anchored American foreign policy since 1945. Both the value of the alliance and the fairness of its cost distribution are now openly debated on both sides of the Atlantic.

NATO members committed to spending at least two percent of GDP on defense. Compliance was uneven for many years and has risen substantially since 2022, though what counts toward the target and whether it is the right measure both remain contested.

The European Union is a separate institution from NATO with overlapping but not identical membership. Trade, technology regulation, and data rules run through the EU, while collective defense runs through NATO.

European regulation in technology, privacy, and competition frequently affects American firms directly, making transatlantic disputes as much regulatory as military.

The positionsFind your officials →

POSITION 1 / 3

Alliance is a core asset

Shared democratic values and pooled capability make Europe the most valuable partnership the United States has.

Allied bases and access enable operations the United States could not mount alone.
Collective defense has deterred major-power war in Europe for decades.
Coordinated sanctions and export controls are far more effective than unilateral ones.
European spending has risen sharply in recent years.

POSITION 2 / 3

Rebalance the burden

Wealthy allies have underinvested in their own defense for decades because American protection made it unnecessary.

Several members still fall short of commitments they made.
American taxpayers subsidize the defense of economies that compete with theirs.
Dependence has left European capabilities hollow in key areas.
Pressure has produced more movement than decades of persuasion did.

POSITION 3 / 3

Alliance with clearer terms

The alliance is worth keeping, but the arrangement should be renegotiated rather than assumed.

European strategic autonomy could complement rather than replace NATO.
Defense industrial cooperation reduces duplication across members.
Regulatory disputes should be handled separately from security commitments.
Clear expectations reduce the recurring friction over burden sharing.

Terms you will hearFind your officials →

Article 5: The NATO provision treating an attack on one member as an attack on all.
Two percent pledge: The NATO target for member defense spending as a share of GDP.
Strategic autonomy: European capacity to act militarily without depending on American enablers.
Brussels effect: The tendency of EU regulation to become a de facto global standard.

What people actually disagree aboutFind your officials →

Is defense spending as a share of GDP the right measure of contribution?
Would European strategic autonomy strengthen or weaken the alliance?
Should security commitments be linked to trade and regulatory disputes?

Do something about itFind your officials →

Know where you stand? The people who actually vote on this are reachable, and a message in your own words carries more weight than a form letter.

Find your officials →

Was this page balanced?

We are not asking whether you agree with any position — only whether each one was stated fairly. That is the standard this site is built to meet.

Think a position here is stated unfairly? Tell us what an advocate for that view would say instead.