Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedForeign Policy, Defense & Wars

Recently I have said that NATO was obsolete, because it did not properly cover terror, and also, that many of the member countries were not paying their fair share. The countries we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 89%

Independently verified all three cited sources as real, live, and accurately quoted. The NATO official transcript (PRIMARY) confirms Stoltenberg telling Trump allies 'will have added 100 billion more into their defence budgets since you took office.' FactCheck.org (REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) confirms non-US allies increased defense spending by '$40 billion, or 15%, from 2016 to 2019' and that 'nine of the 29 member countries met the 2% goal in 2019.' The Newsweek article is a real, matching source. Trump made NATO burden-sharing a signature, relentlessly-pursued cause across his 2017-2021 term, publicly pressing allies at the 2017/2018/2019 summits to pay their 'fair share' (the 2% of GDP guideline). He actively LED and DROVE the effort rather than casting a single supporting vote, so this exceeds ATTEMPTED. The full substantive goal (all allies at their fair share) was NOT achieved — most members remained below 2% by the end of his term — and analysts note part of the upward trend began in 2014 (post-Crimea, pre-Trump), so this is CHAMPIONED, not FULL. Fairness check under a party-neutral standard: a president of either party who made an issue a signature cause across a full term, publicly leading it with measurable partial results, would earn CHAMPIONED; the disputed causation caps it below FULL but does not undercut the undisputed leadership. The prior rating stands; confidence trimmed marginally (0.90 to 0.89) to reflect the genuine 'little to do with Trump' counter-narrative on results, which affects a FULL claim more than the CHAMPIONED leadership finding.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →