Strategic Partner or Dominant Power? Rethinking U.S. Influence on NATO’s Consensus Model

The 2025 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit was held at the Hague in Netherlands on 24-25 June 2025 hosted by Secretary General Mark Rutte. ​As the organisation gathered for its 76th summit, cracks beneath the alliance model were more visible than ever. The United States, NATO’s largest military and financial backer, has always wielded extensive influence over its workings. Yet this year, under President Donald Trump’s second term, that influence felt more like direction than persuasion, raising real questions about whether NATO’s decisions are truly collective anymore.

A Tense Gathering

Held over two days, the summit in the Netherlands was notable for its brevity and its careful choreography. The official agenda that fit on a single page was a reflection of both the urgency and the discomfort within the alliance. At the centre of that discomfort was the uncertainty about America’s long-term commitment to NATO. Trump’s rhetoric ahead of the summit suggested that NATO was obsolete unless Europeans dramatically increased their defence spending. This scepticism toward NATO’s continued collective defence guarantees, unless they were on American terms, left many allies rattled. It reflected a transactional and unilateral approach that seemed less about alliance-wide consensus and more about bilateral leverage. Would the U.S. pull back from its security guarantees if others didn’t step up and pay more? This central fear seemed to plague the minds of allies and the question of how NATO would sustain its credibility if the U.S. was to withdraw.

Headline Outcome: The 5% Pledge

Despite the tension, leaders emerged with a landmark announcement that has lately been a cause of contention between members. A new stated goal for all NATO members is to spend 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035. Branded as the ‘Hague Defence Commitment’, the pledge marks a huge leap from the previous 2% target, as now 3.5% defence spending is reserved for traditional military capabilities and 1.5% for infrastructure, innovation, and cyber resilience.

President Trump celebrated the move as a victory, claiming it would unlock over $1 trillion per year in new military spending. But behind the scenes, not all allies were enthusiastic. Countries like Spain voiced public concerns about affordability and fairness, revealing the tension between political optics and domestic realities.

A Narrower View of Threats

The summit’s final declaration identified Russia as NATO’s primary long-term threat, along with the ongoing risks of terrorism. But notably absent were any direct mentions of China, Iran, or broader instability in the Middle East, all of which had figured prominently in the 2024 Washington declaration after the completion of last year’s summit.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was present at the summit, issued a stark warning to Europe about the growing belligerency of Russia and the threat that it poses to the continent where it may target a NATO member within the next five years. Even as allies reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, while agreeing that aid to Kyiv would count toward the new 5% spending target, there was no discussion around the disputable issue of Ukraine’s impending NATO membership bid which showed just how carefully the alliance was treading.

NATO’s Consensus Model: Tested by Power Politics

In theory, NATO’s consensus model means every opinion carries equal weight and that every decision must be agreed to by all. In practise, however, the summit 2025 showed how power imbalances shape that consensus. The United States, while not officially the dominant power, now seems to be clearly setting the tone and pace of the agenda. Many decisions, too, appear increasingly driven by U.S. interests, rather than shaped by genuine collective deliberation.

Under Trump, Washington’s approach is less consultative and more transactional. Rather than navigating a middle ground to align goals, the U.S. now seems more inclined to issue demands, leaving allies to either fall in line or risk consequences. Leaders like Secretary General Mark Rutte, hosting his first summit in the role, strove to project unity, but the summit seemed to be bogged down by various uncertainties, including whether President Trump would even be in attendance or not, and the compressed format and diplomatic language suggested constraint all around, not consensus.

The various themes that defined the 2025 NATO Summit included:

Political uncertainties

• Wavering trust in the U.S.’s participation and unpredictability surrounding continued security guarantees under the possibility of withdrawing support for underperforming allies.

• Ukraine’s future remains ambiguous, with support but no pathway to membership. Despite firm rhetorical support, the path to membership for Ukraine remains stalled, with the alliance offering aid but no timeline.

• The narrow strategic scope of the summit was suggestive of a lack of strategic consensus around complex issues or a deliberate avoidance of overextension at a time where NATO needs to circumvent getting bogged down in secondary conflicts.

Balancing Commitments

• The 5% GDP goal is meant to satisfy U.S. demands but strains domestic politics across Europe. Including Ukraine aid as defence spending helps bridge the gap for now, but it may undermine NATO’s core military readiness in the longer term.

• Redefining spending goals represents not only a shift in NATO’s strategic ambitions but also reflects a balancing act that needs to be achieved between funding conventional firepower and ensuring next-generation resilience, to cater to both present and future threats. However, the real test of commitment will be implementation over time, especially during times of economic downturns.

Sidestepping flashpoints

• Discussions on the threat posed by actions of China, Iran and North Korea and their emerging partnership with Russia were deliberately avoided and discussions were limited to the immediate narrow focus on Russia’s actions against Ukraine and the prevalence of the issue of terrorism in the region.

• Ukraine’s membership question was deferred again, in an attempt to try to appease Washington, while supporting Kyiv and working towards modernising the alliance, all without alienating its own members.

The Bottom Line

A short summit with a single-page agenda is reflective of the turbulent times that inter-state relations have undergone in recent times. A backdrop of strategic ambiguity, geopolitical tension, and political theatrics seemed to put a constraint on discussions around divisive issues. America’s European allies have been unsure of President Donald Trump’s long-term intentions in the alliance, and the security consequences if the U.S. withdraws from NATO over their underinvestment in defence. The 2025 NATO Summit revealed that while the alliance publicly maintains unity, U.S. strategic priorities, especially regarding defence spending, China policy, and Ukraine, are increasingly dictating the agenda, exposing the illusion of genuine consensus.

The 2025 NATO Summit in Hague will be remembered less for what was said than for what was unsaid. On paper, the alliance showed unity, ambition, and resolve. But beneath the surface, it was a summit shaped by uncertainty, imbalance, and caution. NATO’s future still depends on consensus. But if consensus becomes code for deference, especially to one member, the alliance’s democratic character may erode, even if its military might keep growing.

Dr. Shivani Yadav is a non-resident research fellow at the America Program of the Sixteenth Council