The United States should stop financially supporting NATO allies that fail to support the alliance credibly. As such, President Donald Trump should relocate a U.S. naval air base in Spain to Greece. He should also transfer Air Force and Army units out of Italy to Poland. The incoming German government has suggested it will dramatically increase defense spending. If it fails to do so significantly and sustainably, Trump should also relocate U.S. forces out of Germany to Poland.

The overriding purpose of these relocations should not be to punish Spain and Italy. Instead, it should be to make clear that the U.S. will now prioritize allies that actually care about the fundamental ingredient of this defensive alliance: mutual burden-sharing.

Recommended Stories

• Does Trump have a Plan B if his tariffs plunge us into recession?
• Coastal California's war on the Central Valley
• Trump betrays MAGA with his Greenland obsession

That concern matters because NATO matters. The alliance continues to serve Americans as well as our allies. It serves the U.S. by providing for the defense of democratic trade partners and historic friends. Indeed, combined U.S. exports to the European Union and non-EU member European states, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Montenegro, and Albania, amounted to $455 billion in 2024. U.S. exports to Russia in 2021, the year prior to the invasion of Ukraine, amounted to $6.4 billion. Even by the most base measure of self-interest, economic benefit, only an idiot would think Russia offers more to America than does Europe. And that’s before we consider NATO’s great moral import in sustaining a 76-year democratic peace in Europe. This is a peace unparalleled in European history that has provided a foundation for beneficial American-led cooperation in numerous other international security, diplomatic, and economic domains. NATO both serves and evidences American exceptionalism.

Still, NATO’s health cannot be sustained if some allies are able to keep treating it as a piggy bank shield via which to divert money to welfare spending. Too many in the media pretend that NATO is now fit for purpose and that all alliance members are moving in the right direction on defense spending. They are wrong. The truth is that 19 of NATO’s 32 members either spent less than the 2%-of-GDP defense spending minimum target in 2024 or between 2% and 2.15% of GDP on defense.

There are causes for a little optimism.

The EU has just approved $163 billion in loans pledged for increased defense spending. This allocation reflects significant concern that defense spending must rise to deal with declining U.S. military support for Europe, as well as the rising threat of Russian aggression on the continent. But while most EU nations are taking these loans seriously, some are not.

Consider the NATO chart below, which shows each alliance member’s percentage-of-GDP defense spending in 2014 and 2024. As you look, bear in mind that 2024 was two years after Russia’s commencement of the largest land war in Europe since 1945 and 10 years after all NATO members promised to move toward a 2%-of-GDP defense spending target. The chart shows that Poland and Greece, respectively, spent 4.12% and 3.08% of GDP on defense in 2024. Poland uses these investments to provide specialized and speedy support to the U.S. military. Notably, however, it also shows that Spain spent just 1.28% of GDP on defense in 2024 and that Italy spent just 1.49% of GDP. It gets worse. As the Financial Times recently reported, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez pushed to include cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and “efforts to combat climate change” as qualifying expenditures for the loans. Italy similarly wanted to include “competitiveness.” This kind of arrogant idiocy is why the Polish prime minister rightly called out his Spanish counterpart this time last year. It’s clear Sanchez hasn’t learned anything over the past 12 months.

The U.S. has to change this dynamic. Allies who act in support of mutual defense interests deserve American support. To be clear, if the Russians ever attack Estonia or Poland, the U.S. military should be there to “fight tonight.” But those at the right end of the chart above, those who take from NATO but do little for it, deserve to be punished for their choices.

Belgium, which absurdly retains the honor of hosting NATO headquarters, is one such member, as is Canada. As is Portugal, which pulled out of the F-35 fighter jet program with the excuse that it fears Trump may one day suspend the jet’s spare parts supply chain (that concern is legitimate, but Portugal is using it as an excuse to avoid higher defense spending). But Trump should also bear in mind the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in annual economic benefit that a nation accrues by hosting major U.S. military bases on its soil.

In turn, the U.S. should relocate its forces out of the naval air base in Rota, Spain, and various bases in Italy. The Rota relocation would involve five Navy destroyers. Two of those destroyers could be relocated to Greece’s Souda naval base to protect NATO’s southern flank alongside underutilized European navies. The remaining three destroyers could be returned to U.S. naval bases or sent to the Pacific. The Italy-based units would include F-16 fighter jets and the Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade rapid response force. Poland would make optimal sense as a relocation point for these units based on its proximity to those reliable NATO members most under threat and Poland’s proven seriousness as a defense ally.

These moves would save billions of dollars annually over time. But there is no question that the short-term costs would be significant. They would mean abandoning heavy investments in basing infrastructure. They would mean significant new investments in new basing infrastructure. Again, however, America need not bear all the costs here.

Poland has suggested it would provide a sizable financial contribution to support any new U.S. military bases. And over the longer term, the relocation of destroyers either back to the U.S. or to Pacific bases would boost readiness for China contingencies. But the current status quo is clearly unsustainable. The president should remain committed to NATO on the specific basis of how it benefits both Americans and our allies. But he should be under no obligation to pretend that all allies are equal. Plainly, they are not.

U.S. BOOSTS IRAN STRIKE OPTIONS WITH AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND BOMBER DEPLOYMENTS

If Spain and Italy want to put welfare spending first, that’s their democratic prerogative. But the American taxpayer should not be expected to help subsidize their defensive interests and government budgets in doing so. Relocating U.S. forces in Europe from unreliable freeloaders to reliable partners would send a clear message.

Namely, that while America wants a strong NATO, a strong and sustaining NATO can only be built around strong allies.