Summary

Heads of state and government from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) 32 members are scheduled to meet for a summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8, 2026. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has outlined three core priorities for the summit: continuing to increase allied defense investment, bolstering transatlantic defense industrial production, and supporting Ukraine. In Ankara, allied leaders also are expected to address President Donald J. Trump’s criticisms of NATO and concerns from some NATO members about the impact on NATO political cohesion and alliance credibility. A top Trump Administration priority for NATO has been to urge European allies and Canada to increase defense spending and assume greater responsibility for conventional defense in Europe.

Ahead of the Ankara summit, Secretary General Rutte has highlighted that European allies and Canada collectively have spent an additional $1.2 trillion on defense over the past decade, with all allied defense budgets reaching or exceeding 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025. In Ankara, Rutte expects allies to put forward concrete plans to meet NATO’s new defense spending target of 5% of GDP on defense- and security-related spending by 2035 (including 3.5% of GDP on core defense requirements and 1.5% of GDP on defense-related expenditures). NATO allies also are expected to announce new initiatives to bolster defense industrial capacity across the alliance and tens of billions of dollars in related new defense contracts.

Another key priority for NATO officials at the Ankara summit is to continue institutionalizing long-term allied support for Ukraine, both from individual allies and from NATO as a whole. Secretary General Rutte has expressed support for Trump Administration-led efforts to negotiate a peace agreement in Ukraine and has emphasized that any peace settlement should ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin never again attempts to invade Ukraine. Some allied governments have expressed concern about perceived diminished U.S. support for Ukraine under the Trump Administration. These concerns have grown as some NATO and European officials report that U.S. military operations against Iran could lead to procurement shortages and delays that may affect assistance to Ukraine.

President Trump’s statements criticizing NATO and casting doubt on the alliance’s value to the United States have caused some allied governments to question the Administration’s commitment to the alliance. President Trump’s stated interest in acquiring Greenland—a self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a founding member of NATO—has exacerbated these concerns for many allies. Administration announcements in 2026 of planned U.S. troop reductions in Europe also have caused officials in some European countries to question U.S. reliability and credibility as an ally. President Trump heightened his public criticisms of NATO in March 2026 as European allies declined his requests to assist in protecting shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz during the United States’ and Israel’s military operations against Iran.

Congress was instrumental in creating NATO in 1949—including through Senate ratification of NATO’s founding North Atlantic Treaty—and has played a role in shaping U.S. policy toward the alliance ever since. NATO-related issues of ongoing interest to Members of Congress could include allied defense spending, the future of U.S. and NATO force posture in Europe, NATO relations with Ukraine, and NATO’s policies toward Russia and the People’s Republic of China. More broadly, Members of Congress could consider a range of questions related to U.S. leadership of the alliance, including with respect to future U.S. commitments to NATO and European security, allied perceptions of U.S. leadership of NATO, and the costs and benefits of U.S. membership in NATO.

Over the past decade, both chambers of Congress have passed legislation expressing support for NATO. Some Members have portrayed such measures as responses to President Trump’s criticisms of the alliance, including concerns that the President could consider withdrawing the United States from NATO. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 (P.L. 118-31), for example, would require the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate before a possible U.S. withdrawal from the alliance. Several provisions of the FY2026 NDAA (P.L. 119-60) seek to expand congressional oversight of U.S. policy toward NATO and European security.

Contents

• Overview
• Defense Spending and Investment
• Collective Defense
• U.S. Force Posture in Europe
• Support for Ukraine
• Issues for Congress
• NATO-Related Provisions in the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act

The Congressional Research Service report, NATO: Issues for the July 2026 Ankara Summit, complements Major Cody Schuette’s SWJ perspective piece, “Understanding NATO’s Burden-Sharing Debate: Political Rhetoric and Defense Spending Realities,“ by translating the strategic debates surrounding NATO burden-sharing into current alliance policy. The CRS report identifies three central priorities for the Ankara Summit:

• increasing allied defense investment,
• expanding transatlantic defense-industrial production, and
• sustaining long-term support for Ukraine.

All while also examining how U.S. pressure for greater European defense spending and evolving questions surrounding alliance credibility are reshaping NATO’s future.

Schuette’s article provides the analytical context behind these developments by arguing that NATO burden-sharing cannot be measured solely by the traditional 2% GDP defense spending benchmark. Instead, he contends that alliance contributions should also account for modernization efforts, military capability development, support to Ukraine, and the strategic advantages the United States derives from leading NATO. While acknowledging that President Trump’s rhetoric has accelerated allied defense spending, Schuette’s work warns that reducing the debate to spending targets alone risks overlooking the broader political and strategic value of the alliance.

Read together, these works demonstrate the evolution of NATO’s burden-sharing debate from political rhetoric to institutional policy. Schuette explains the strategic logic behind calls for greater allied contributions, while the CRS report illustrates how those debates have materialized in proposals for a new 5% defense investment target, expanded defense-industrial capacity, increased European responsibility for conventional defense, and continued support for Ukraine. Together, they provide the conceptual framework and the contemporary policy context necessary to understand the alliance’s ongoing transformation.