NATO has been an ever-present security institution in Europe and around the world for decades. However, nothing has tested the Alliance in the way the Russian invasion of Ukraine has since the Cold War. The surprising cohesiveness of NATO’s response to the invasion shows the enduring strength of its capabilities but has also exposed severe weaknesses in the years since. Limited European defense spending and downplaying of US concerns have been common themes since before the first Trump administration and continue to be an issue as NATO struggles to support the needs of the Ukrainian military. While there is risk in President Trump’s approach, the aggressive posturing may motivate NATO allies to rapidly invest more in their Arctic security capabilities in support of urgent US strategic concerns.

This theme of the US calling for greater European defense investment is not new. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor under the Bush Administration, openly called for greater European defense spending in 2000. These concerns about European underinvestment in its own security only grew under the Obama administration. Concern over military investment was joined by an even stronger, almost prophetic, worry about the EU's energy dependence on Russian oil and gas. In 2016, Vice President Biden warned that Russia could use its energy leverage to destabilize Ukraine and influence European policy towards Russia—a scenario that ultimately unfolded with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Europe's struggle to find alternative energy sources. Europe has since made costly and difficult decisions to rapidly shift away from Russian energy, which would have been far easier to bear had its leaders taken US warnings seriously. Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the US has maintained its stance on European decisions, albeit with more bellicose rhetoric under President Trump and a period of more conciliatory engagement under President Biden.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe has slowly invested more in its long-term security infrastructure, but its capabilities are still inadequate in the short and medium term. European leaders are still reluctant to take US concerns, such as the European Union’s economic dependence on China and the unwillingness of Europeans to decouple critical sectors, in particular technology, from Chinese imports. Another concern is Russia's dominance of the Northern Trade Route and China’s greater usage of the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The NSR represents the potential to reduce shipping times by up to 40%, holds significant oil and natural gas reserves, and has been targeted by the Chinese and Russian military as a priority, as seen in their growing investment in their icebreaker fleets. A strong military presence and economic utilization of the Arctic would give NATO’s geopolitical rivals greater leverage in their claims and authority over the area as well as the means of enforcing it. This includes claims to resources as well as the ability to maintain channels through ice and consequently the rights to collect transit fees.  The relative lack of NATO presence in the Arctic would present a long-term security and economic threat to Europe and the US as China and Russia work to project power closer to the Alliance’s borders.

Trump's aggressive rhetoric may be exactly the kind of jolt that is needed to motivate European leaders to take US priorities seriously and devote the resources necessary to secure collective NATO interests. Time has shown that Europe is often unwilling to invest in critical capabilities and safeguards, and while potentially imprudent, President Trump’s posturing regarding the annexation of Greenland may accelerate European decision-making. Denmark and other NATO members have signaled their intent to invest in NATO’s Arctic capabilities. Though this is an improvement, Europe can and must do more. The ICE Pact, signed by the US, Canada, and Finland in late 2024, signals a beginning to closer cooperation and investment in the Arctic capabilities, but it will not be enough alone. Though brash, President Trump has the potential to rapidly increase European commitment to Arctic security despite criticisms of the hostility generated by his actions.

European leaders have recently met to discuss the future of their security and the role of European countries in maintaining peace on the continent in the face of American criticism and ambiguity of future US involvement. Discussion on defense spending, particularly in the Arctic, has generally resulted in a consensus that it must increase. However, debate over the best approach to accomplish this has continued. US pressure and President Trump’s rhetoric will likely continue, but it is highly unlikely that the US will use military force or withdraw from NATO. However, It is unclear how current US policy towards Ukraine will impact long-term cooperation with Europe after the highly charged meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized the US commitment to the alliance in a recent visit to Poland and reiterated US expectation of Europe taking responsibility for its own security. Despite those comments, it is clear that overstepping could result in potentially irreparable harm to security cooperation between Europe and the US and defeat President Trump's desire to counter Russian and Chinese influence. Alternatively, it would also be disadvantageous for the US to not be aggressive in its demands as European vulnerabilities would constitute American vulnerabilities, drawing vital resources away from US interests in the South Pacific.