‘Naughty or nice?’: Trump ranks NATO allies into categories based on defense spending, support in Iran war –

The White House has developed a “naughty and nice” list of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, ranking member states based on their contributions to the alliance and their standing during the ongoing war with Iran, the White House said.The move is seen as part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to pressure allies who did not support Washington’s position during the war.

According to officials familiar with the plan, NATO members were placed in different tiers based on defense spending, military cooperation and operational support.The assessment was reportedly prepared ahead of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington, where officials are reviewing how each member contributes to collective security, according to Politico.This idea was proposed by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year. He had previously explained the concept of rewarding countries that meet US expectations on defense spending and military cooperation.He added: “Model allies who come forward, such as Israel, South Korea, Poland, and increasingly Germany, the Baltic states and others, will receive our special preference.” “Allies who continue to fail to do their part in collective defense will face the consequences,” Hegseth said.

The Pentagon has also reinforced this approach in its National Defense Strategy, stating that cooperation will be a priority with allies “doing their part” in collective defense and shared security goals.One diplomat said the list appeared to reflect this concept. “The White House has a bad newspaper and a nice newspaper, so I think the thinking is similar,” this person said, according to Politico.This assessment is also linked to recent tensions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over the Iranian conflict, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz crisis and US military operations.

Officials said the designation could influence decisions about which countries are offered greater military cooperation or strategic support in future operations.The Trump administration expressed frustration with allies who did not support US requests during the conflict, including participating in operations or accessing military bases.

Division among NATO members

Reports indicate that countries such as Romania and Poland have been more cooperative, allowing the United States to use air bases and logistical support during Middle East operations.

Poland, already one of NATO’s biggest defense spenders, hosts about 10,000 US troops and covers most of the associated costs. The expanded Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania has also been used for US military operations.In contrast, countries, including Spain and some other allies in Western Europe, reportedly resisted or delayed US requests for assistance. Meanwhile, Baltic states such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have been consistently praised for meeting or exceeding their defense spending targets.Potential consequences for countries placed lower on the list could include reduced troop deployments, less joint training, or changes in military sales and cooperation, officials said. However, they also acknowledged that changing the US military presence within Europe would be costly, complex, and logistically difficult.One European official stressed that even redeployment options would largely move US forces between allied countries rather than remove them from Europe entirely.

Limited clarity on implementation

Despite the discussion, officials have offered little clarity on how strictly the rating system will be enforced or what specific “rewards” or “punishments” will look like. Some diplomats familiar with the discussions said the administration itself seemed unsure about how to operationalize the idea.A European official described the concept as not yet fully developed, noting that while troop movement is an option, it could ultimately put more pressure on American resources rather than punish allies.However, the White House defended its approach. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the United States has long supported allies who now need to contribute more.“While the United States has always been there for our so-called allies, the countries we protect with thousands of troops have not been there for us throughout Operation Epic Fury,” she said, referring to the Pentagon’s classification of the Iran-related operation.“President Trump has made his thoughts clear about this unfair dynamic, and as he said, the United States will remember,” she added.US Senator Roger Wicker said that “it is not helpful for American leaders to talk about our alliances sarcastically,” warning that the alliances carry “political, strategic and moral benefits” for the country.“It is not helpful for American leaders to talk about our alliances with cynicism,” Wicker said. “We must be clear about the many political, strategic and moral benefits the country reaps from its alliances.”The former officials also questioned whether the Trump administration has the capacity to pursue an expanded restructuring of alliance relations while managing ongoing global crises.