Trudeau—Not Trump—Is the Greatest Threat to NATO | Opinion

According to media reports, leaders in the capitals of some members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are alarmed by the potential return of President Trump. The narrative that President Trump would be the end of transatlantic security cooperation provides convenient cover to the demolition already occurring from within. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, not Trump, is a threat to the stability and success of NATO.
In 2014, at the Wales NATO Summit, there was a unanimous agreement between all allies, including Canada, to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on national defense. It would be deterrence through collective strength. For most allies, Wales established a floor for defense spending—not a ceiling.
As a founding member of NATO in 1949, Canada should lead by example for newer allies. Rather, using the 2 percent metric, Canada is 27th in the 32-member alliance for defense spending. In fact, NATO has doubled in membership since 1999 and the Alliance’s two newest members—Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024)—currently meet or exceed the 2 percent domestic spending for defense.
Regrettably Canada’s national defense spending is on the decline. Currently, Canada spends a paltry 1.34 percent of its GDP on its military after reaching an equally unacceptable 1.4 percent in 2020. Defense spending actually decreased to a recent low of 1.24 percent in 2022. While Trudeau’s most recent budget sets a 1.76 percent target by 2029, its parliamentary budget officer predicts defense spending will only reach 1.42 percent by the end of the decade.
Clearly, Canada is taking advantage of not only NATO membership but its proximity to the United States. Amazingly, Trudeau recently announced Canada will reach the Wales Pledge of 2 percent … by 2032.
Take your time Canada; Russia can wait.
Furthermore, a recent Canadian Defense Department assessment found nearly half of their existing equipment unusable and a 16,000 personnel shortfall. When examining Canada’s NATO obligations, only 58 percent of those military components directly committed to the mission were found to be actually capable of entering combat if called upon.
An examination of intentional delays in joining the F-35 Joint-Strike Fighter Jet program underscores Trudeau’s mentality. At a public event in Halifax in 2015, Trudeau emphatically stated, “We will not buy the F-35 fighter jet” and campaigned for reelection on that issue. He promised Canada would purchase a more affordable airframe so that investments could be made elsewhere.
Nearly a decade later, those investments were never made, and the Canadian military is in shambles.
Those who know the F-35 program know it embodies a collective defense approach, wherein allied nations contribute to and benefit from shared defense capabilities. By integrating the F-35 into their fleets, allied nations bolster their ability to protect shared interests and address common threats in a synchronized manner.
After years watching NATO allies sign onto the program, Trudeau reluctantly caved and agreed to join the joint-strike fighter program. If not for Trudeau’s indecision, the Canadian military would be contributing to collective security and deploying the transformational fighter today. Instead, Canada is expected to receive a mere four planes by the end of 2026 and the remaining 84 jets by 2034. In the complex threat environment we currently face, preventable delays foster dangerous security lapses.
On the other hand, when Wales was agreed upon, only three nations—the United States, the United Kingdom, and Greece—met the 2 percent benchmark. By the end of President Trump’s first term, it had tripled to nine nations, with allies spending $130 billion more on defense and pledges of up to $400 billion by end of 2024. Currently, 23 NATO allies have now met their obligation, no doubt greatly motivated by Russia’s brutal invasion of sovereign Ukraine.
Furthermore, each U.S. President has placed NATO in a stronger strategic position than his predecessor, including Trump. While some allies may not appreciate the blunt approach, Trump correctly calls out those who don’t share the burden of collective defense. He never wavered from the United States commitment to NATO, rather tripling the U.S. contribution to the European Deterrence Initiative.
In fact, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has even praised President Trump for his “clear message” on the importance of all NATO members investing in their national defense. As he further asserted, “President Trump has stated many times his commitment to NATO and also to our collective defense goals … Actions speak louder than words.”
While Trump has strengthened NATO and deepened U.S. commitment to the Alliance, Trudeau has undermined it by refusing to fund at 2 percent and with his overall lack of participation. For example, the Trump administration provided lethal javelin missiles to Ukraine prior to the invasion while, even today as the war rages on, the Trudeau government has provided tepid military assistance.
If every nation took Trudeau’s approach, NATO would not exist.
Looking beyond Ukraine, critical security concerns today face NATO from all directions. From increasing tensions in the Arctic and Indo-Pacific to emerging threats in the cyber and space domains, these challenges are literally in Canada’s backyard, yet do not motivate the Trudeau government to meet the burdens of membership. For the ally with the largest land mass and 8th largest population, there appears no embarrassment in others continuing to foot their security bill.
The threat to the stability and security of NATO is not what may happen in Washington this November. It’s what’s happening in Ottawa today.
Congressman Mike Turner is the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and the head of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.