Trump Second Term Tracker
- Thread starter touchdown
- Start date
touchdown
Defense Wins Championships
- Messages
- 7,587
- Reaction score
- 7,036
NATO’s Dirty Little Secret
How American taxpayers subsidize Europe’s welfare programs — and why Trump’s skepticism
isn’t reckless.
By Brad Schaeffer
Jan 20, 2026 DailyWire.com
There has been a clamor among some on the American Right for the United States to pull out of
NATO, given Europe’s reflexively adversarial response to Trump’s Greenland saber-rattling.
Whether we should remain in an alliance formed in a very different world back in 1949 is a
question President Trump first raised during his initial term. The question actually has more
merit than one might think at first blush.
One must ask what exactly NATO’s raison d’être was to begin with. It is difficult, eighty years
on, to recall just how much of a mess Europe was at the time. Much of the continent had been
razed by the most lethal of its many internecine conflicts. Europe was no longer at war, but it
was not exactly at peace either. Stalin — a dictator with as much, if not more, innocent blood on
his hands than Hitler — had advanced his Red Army all the way through Poland, then-
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and half of Germany. That Soviet presence was massive:
nearly ten million infantry backed by tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. By 1945, the Red
Army had become a military colossus that had just annihilated the most professional army in the
world.
Given this looming threat just over the horizon, by 1949 Western Europe needed to band
together to offer a deterrent to Stalin’s hegemony. And given the circumstances, the only
military body capable of giving this new North Atlantic Treaty Organization its muscle was, of
course, the U.S. Armed Forces. While Western Europe was rebuilt under the auspices of the
Marshall Plan, American troops, armor, and aircraft kept the Soviets at bay. This mission was
performed successfully all the way to 1991, when the Soviet Union — the very threat NATO was
created to contain — abruptly collapsed.
That was 35 years ago. And yet NATO did not ride off into the sunset with its mission
accomplished. Instead, it continued to expand, adding 16 new nations — each creeping closer
and closer to an increasingly alarmed Russia (a country that suffered roughly 25 million dead
repelling the last Western invaders from its soil).
But why the steady eastward expansion? Some NATO supporters argue that Putin’s resurgence
and his aggression in Ukraine are answer enough.
But Ukraine and Russia share a convoluted history. Ukraine has long been contested land,
where its story and Russia’s overlap in a region that has seen over seven hundred conflicts
since the fall of Rome. This is not the first time war has raged from Crimea to the Donbas. Nor
will it be the last. There is no reason for a non-Ukrainian to die fighting for that territory.
In fact, the only credible reason to continue our involvement in NATO is if Putin’s Russia poses
the same danger as Stalin’s USSR once did. But today’s Russian military is not the Red Army
of 1945 in which anywhere from 30 to 35% of its personnel were non-Russians (including 20%
Ukrainians). And today Russia is demographically dying. Between 1990 and now—owing to the
breakup of the Soviet Union, low birth rates, emigration, and early mortality often linked to
alcoholism—Russia’s population has shrunk by roughly three to five million; that is a around a 2
to 4% decline. Over that same period, the U.S. population grew by more than 95 million, or
roughly 38%. Even without the United States, the EU today has roughly four times Russia’s
population. History shows that in modern war, population is often the best predictor of who
prevails in a protracted struggle.
Russia’s economy is both small and oil-dependent. It has been called the world’s largest gas
station for a reason. Anywhere from 20 to 30% of its economy depends on crude oil sales,
depending on the year and market conditions — making it extremely vulnerable to sanctions or
blockades. As it stands, Russia’s entire economy is smaller than that of three American states.
Speaking of economies, since NATO’s establishment, the GDP of EU nations has grown from
barely $2.5 trillion to as high as $23 trillion today, an increase of more than 800%. This prompts
the obvious question: if these nations have grown so rich, why do they still need us as if they
were clearing rubble out of Cologne?
In other words, whether one agrees with leaving NATO or not, Trump’s re-evaluation of an
alliance nearing the end of its eighth decade is not grounded in anti-EU whimsy, but in a classic
cost-benefit analysis of its service to American interests.
Polls show that while only about 15% of Americans favor leaving NATO, as many as 30% of
European residents believe the United States should reduce or end its role in Europe’s defense.
This is ironic. If the same Europeans who love to hold up their model social-welfare systems —
especially their “free” health care — understood how much of those systems are underwritten
by the American taxpayer, they might take a less belligerent view toward one of their primary
health care providers.
What do I mean by this?
Take a look at the wealthiest EU nation — and the one with the most violent history with Russia
— Germany. Germany currently spends roughly 2% of its €5 trillion GDP on defense, or about
€100 billion annually. At the same time, it spends roughly ten to 12% of GDP on health care —
around €500 billion per year. Estimates suggest that if American soldiers and airmen withdrew
and Germany were left to fend for itself, Berlin would need to raise defense spending to as
much as 4% of GDP. That means an additional €90–100 billion every year. That money has to
come from somewhere. And since health care is the largest pool of discretionary spending
(unless Berlin plans on raiding pensions), that is where it would most likely be found. A full
American withdrawal would require cutting Germany’s health care system by at least 20%.
The consequences would be catastrophic. Growth spending would slow, wait times would
balloon into rationing, co-pays and supplemental costs would rise, hospital consolidations would
reduce access to emergency and specialized care, benefits would shrink, staffing shortages
would worsen, and zero-cost access would disappear. Setting aside health outcomes, the social
upheaval in a country accustomed to expansive care at minimal personal cost would be acute
— and politically devastating for any party responsible.
And Germany is only one nation. If the entire EU had to raise defense spending to 4% to fill the
void left by an American departure, it would require roughly €340 billion more per year — again,
about 20% of total EU health care spending. Even partial offsets would place ten to 20%
pressure on health budgets — unless already sky-high taxes rose further. Suddenly, the EU’s
vaunted “free” health care system would be anything but.
Put more bluntly, NATO is not merely a security alliance — it is a massive American taxpayer-
funded subsidy for Europe’s welfare state. That is the dirty little secret no one in Brussels wants
to discuss. Every time a German walks into a “free” clinic or a Frenchman is wheeled into an
operating room, roughly one euro in five is effectively paid by you and me. NATO — at least for
its original Western democracies — needs the United States not to defend borders it could fund
itself, but to prop up welfare systems already straining under their own weight.
There is a famous story in business lore about accounting wunderkind Harry Sonneborn, who
told McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc that the real value of his restaurants was not the thin
margins on hamburgers, but the land beneath them. “You’re not in the hamburger business,” he
said. “You’re in the real estate business.”
In the same way, American contributions to NATO are not primarily about Europe’s defense.
They allow European capital to be freed from defense spending — a burden borne by American
taxpayers — and redirected toward social welfare. So when your taxes go to NATO, an alliance
originally created to defend Europeans from other Europeans, you are not in the continental
defense business. You are in the health care business. Just not for yourself. You are providing it
for wealthy Germans, French, Brits, and Scandinavians who understand exactly how fragile their
welfare systems are — and how quickly they would collapse if America walked away. After all, it
is easy to pay for both guns and butter when someone else largely pays for the guns. It is quite
another thing to foot the bill for both.
More the suckers us.
How American taxpayers subsidize Europe’s welfare programs — and why Trump’s skepticism
isn’t reckless.
By Brad Schaeffer
Jan 20, 2026 DailyWire.com
There has been a clamor among some on the American Right for the United States to pull out of
NATO, given Europe’s reflexively adversarial response to Trump’s Greenland saber-rattling.
Whether we should remain in an alliance formed in a very different world back in 1949 is a
question President Trump first raised during his initial term. The question actually has more
merit than one might think at first blush.
One must ask what exactly NATO’s raison d’être was to begin with. It is difficult, eighty years
on, to recall just how much of a mess Europe was at the time. Much of the continent had been
razed by the most lethal of its many internecine conflicts. Europe was no longer at war, but it
was not exactly at peace either. Stalin — a dictator with as much, if not more, innocent blood on
his hands than Hitler — had advanced his Red Army all the way through Poland, then-
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and half of Germany. That Soviet presence was massive:
nearly ten million infantry backed by tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. By 1945, the Red
Army had become a military colossus that had just annihilated the most professional army in the
world.
Given this looming threat just over the horizon, by 1949 Western Europe needed to band
together to offer a deterrent to Stalin’s hegemony. And given the circumstances, the only
military body capable of giving this new North Atlantic Treaty Organization its muscle was, of
course, the U.S. Armed Forces. While Western Europe was rebuilt under the auspices of the
Marshall Plan, American troops, armor, and aircraft kept the Soviets at bay. This mission was
performed successfully all the way to 1991, when the Soviet Union — the very threat NATO was
created to contain — abruptly collapsed.
That was 35 years ago. And yet NATO did not ride off into the sunset with its mission
accomplished. Instead, it continued to expand, adding 16 new nations — each creeping closer
and closer to an increasingly alarmed Russia (a country that suffered roughly 25 million dead
repelling the last Western invaders from its soil).
But why the steady eastward expansion? Some NATO supporters argue that Putin’s resurgence
and his aggression in Ukraine are answer enough.
But Ukraine and Russia share a convoluted history. Ukraine has long been contested land,
where its story and Russia’s overlap in a region that has seen over seven hundred conflicts
since the fall of Rome. This is not the first time war has raged from Crimea to the Donbas. Nor
will it be the last. There is no reason for a non-Ukrainian to die fighting for that territory.
In fact, the only credible reason to continue our involvement in NATO is if Putin’s Russia poses
the same danger as Stalin’s USSR once did. But today’s Russian military is not the Red Army
of 1945 in which anywhere from 30 to 35% of its personnel were non-Russians (including 20%
Ukrainians). And today Russia is demographically dying. Between 1990 and now—owing to the
breakup of the Soviet Union, low birth rates, emigration, and early mortality often linked to
alcoholism—Russia’s population has shrunk by roughly three to five million; that is a around a 2
to 4% decline. Over that same period, the U.S. population grew by more than 95 million, or
roughly 38%. Even without the United States, the EU today has roughly four times Russia’s
population. History shows that in modern war, population is often the best predictor of who
prevails in a protracted struggle.
Russia’s economy is both small and oil-dependent. It has been called the world’s largest gas
station for a reason. Anywhere from 20 to 30% of its economy depends on crude oil sales,
depending on the year and market conditions — making it extremely vulnerable to sanctions or
blockades. As it stands, Russia’s entire economy is smaller than that of three American states.
Speaking of economies, since NATO’s establishment, the GDP of EU nations has grown from
barely $2.5 trillion to as high as $23 trillion today, an increase of more than 800%. This prompts
the obvious question: if these nations have grown so rich, why do they still need us as if they
were clearing rubble out of Cologne?
In other words, whether one agrees with leaving NATO or not, Trump’s re-evaluation of an
alliance nearing the end of its eighth decade is not grounded in anti-EU whimsy, but in a classic
cost-benefit analysis of its service to American interests.
Polls show that while only about 15% of Americans favor leaving NATO, as many as 30% of
European residents believe the United States should reduce or end its role in Europe’s defense.
This is ironic. If the same Europeans who love to hold up their model social-welfare systems —
especially their “free” health care — understood how much of those systems are underwritten
by the American taxpayer, they might take a less belligerent view toward one of their primary
health care providers.
What do I mean by this?
Take a look at the wealthiest EU nation — and the one with the most violent history with Russia
— Germany. Germany currently spends roughly 2% of its €5 trillion GDP on defense, or about
€100 billion annually. At the same time, it spends roughly ten to 12% of GDP on health care —
around €500 billion per year. Estimates suggest that if American soldiers and airmen withdrew
and Germany were left to fend for itself, Berlin would need to raise defense spending to as
much as 4% of GDP. That means an additional €90–100 billion every year. That money has to
come from somewhere. And since health care is the largest pool of discretionary spending
(unless Berlin plans on raiding pensions), that is where it would most likely be found. A full
American withdrawal would require cutting Germany’s health care system by at least 20%.
The consequences would be catastrophic. Growth spending would slow, wait times would
balloon into rationing, co-pays and supplemental costs would rise, hospital consolidations would
reduce access to emergency and specialized care, benefits would shrink, staffing shortages
would worsen, and zero-cost access would disappear. Setting aside health outcomes, the social
upheaval in a country accustomed to expansive care at minimal personal cost would be acute
— and politically devastating for any party responsible.
And Germany is only one nation. If the entire EU had to raise defense spending to 4% to fill the
void left by an American departure, it would require roughly €340 billion more per year — again,
about 20% of total EU health care spending. Even partial offsets would place ten to 20%
pressure on health budgets — unless already sky-high taxes rose further. Suddenly, the EU’s
vaunted “free” health care system would be anything but.
Put more bluntly, NATO is not merely a security alliance — it is a massive American taxpayer-
funded subsidy for Europe’s welfare state. That is the dirty little secret no one in Brussels wants
to discuss. Every time a German walks into a “free” clinic or a Frenchman is wheeled into an
operating room, roughly one euro in five is effectively paid by you and me. NATO — at least for
its original Western democracies — needs the United States not to defend borders it could fund
itself, but to prop up welfare systems already straining under their own weight.
There is a famous story in business lore about accounting wunderkind Harry Sonneborn, who
told McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc that the real value of his restaurants was not the thin
margins on hamburgers, but the land beneath them. “You’re not in the hamburger business,” he
said. “You’re in the real estate business.”
In the same way, American contributions to NATO are not primarily about Europe’s defense.
They allow European capital to be freed from defense spending — a burden borne by American
taxpayers — and redirected toward social welfare. So when your taxes go to NATO, an alliance
originally created to defend Europeans from other Europeans, you are not in the continental
defense business. You are in the health care business. Just not for yourself. You are providing it
for wealthy Germans, French, Brits, and Scandinavians who understand exactly how fragile their
welfare systems are — and how quickly they would collapse if America walked away. After all, it
is easy to pay for both guns and butter when someone else largely pays for the guns. It is quite
another thing to foot the bill for both.
More the suckers us.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,827
- Reaction score
- 3,419
Someone got to Trump and told him how idiotic his tariff plan was.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,827
- Reaction score
- 3,419
This is massive spin. It doesn't get us Greenland. We got a cooperation deal we could have gotten without all the bluster and noise.
I am a Trump supporter but this Greenland thing was just silly nonsense.
dbair1967
Administrator
- Messages
- 67,901
- Reaction score
- 16,635
Well, it worked
dbair1967
Administrator
- Messages
- 67,901
- Reaction score
- 16,635
Pretty sure the immediate cooperation was why they dropped the tariff threat, but long term the intent is still to purchase Greenland.
I don't see why people are so up in arms over this. If you look at the globe you can easily see why it's important to our country (and should be obvious to those light in the loafers Canadians as well).
Over the history of our country we've made several major land purchases and those were celebrated. This should be no different.
dbair1967
Administrator
- Messages
- 67,901
- Reaction score
- 16,635
Why do you think that?
Doomsday
High Plains Drifter
- Messages
- 26,521
- Reaction score
- 9,989
yimyammer
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 12,226
- Reaction score
- 6,805
Give him a break, he's still trying to win an academy award for The Apprentice
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,827
- Reaction score
- 3,419
Greenland has been in the hands of the Danish since the days of the Vikings, who discovered the country like a million years ago. But it is an inhospitable environment which is why practically no one lives there ever after 1900 years of settlement. But enough of the history. Let's talk the present.
Greenland's main export is frozen fish products, which account for about 97% of their export revenue. Their main trade partner is Denmark but it exports some good to Russia (less than 1%), the US, (less than .001%) and China, (less than .0001%). There are reports or rare earth minerals in Greenland but right now that is not a significant part of its trade economy.
Then there is the argument about Greenland's geographical location and its strategic importance. Certainly having Chinese bases in Greenland would be a threat to the US, but why would Denmark, a NATO ally, allow China to build bases in Greenland? And what actions has China taken or insinuated that would lead us to believe they want a base in Greenland? None as far as I have researched. The same argument applies to Russia, only Russia is less in need of Greenland since they can already fly directly over the North polar region to reach the US. Furthermore, the US already has bases in Iceland, a close neighbor of Greenland.
And this argument, as I have stated before, can be made about Russia and Ukraine and China and Taiwan? Ukraine sits on Russia border and many Ukrainians speak Russia as their natural language. Imagine Russia's argument when NATO threatens to put bases in Ukraine.
The key point is Denmark doesn't want to sell us Greenland as it is part of their Kingdom, and has been for a long time. Unlike other land purchases the US has made, the current owner of the land does not want to sell it and Trump has been threatening them to coerce them into a sale - an ally.
The deal we have now with Greenland/Denmark could have been done without antagonizing the Danish government or the people of Greenland, who overwhelmingly want independence from both Denmark and the US.
I don't know what Trump wants from Greenland. If he is really worried about his "Golden Dome" defense system I am pretty sure he could have worked out a deal through NATO to acquire land for bases without the threats and bluster.
Greenland would be another money bleed for the US. We would be pumping money into their economy like Denmark does with little return. We are not a big fish eating country.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,827
- Reaction score
- 3,419
There is no reason why we can't have an alliance with Europe, but there is no doubt things are no the same as they were in 1949. The problem for me is I don't think the alliance is a 2 way street, at least not with every country in Europe anymore. If the US had to go to war with another country, I doubt many NATO countries would support us with troops. If Europe was attacked, you can bet the US would send everything we have short of nukes to support them. Let's be honest, would Germany for example send troops to support a US war effort? Nope. Neither would France. Poland would, and maybe Britain, although I am not sure they would either. We'd be on our own. So what is the point of NATO?
I don't think Russia intends to attack Europe anymore. They may want to get back some of their old USSR territories, but not the ones in NATO now.
Maybe if Europe made a stronger effort to defend itself we might feel differently about NATO in the US.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,827
- Reaction score
- 3,419
Good for her. If the only reason they are not taking a vote is because it includes ending the filibuster, then remove that provision and vote. Make Democrats vote against election integrity and expose them for the fraudsters they are before the mid-terms.