Why Nato fears the worst as Trump decides on US support for Europe

Good morning. A scoop to start: European governments should buy equity in clean tech companies instead of handing out subsidies, the EU’s competition chief Teresa Ribera has told the Financial Times, while rejecting the “buy European” narrative pushed by some of her fellow commissioners.

Today, I explain why Nato allies are petrified about what Donald Trump might decide today on the US’s long-term promise to defend Europe, while my colleagues have more from Ribera warning about the watering down of the EU’s green ambitions.

Judgment day

For five months, European Nato allies have bent over backwards to give US President Donald Trump what he wants in order to secure continued US commitment to the continent’s defence. Today they will find out if it worked.

Context: Trump has demanded Nato allies spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence or risk losing US security protections. Nato’s Article 5 clause mandates that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

Nato leaders gather in The Hague today, with many fearing Trump could tear up eight decades of US protection for Europe at a time when many countries feel threatened by Russia.

The US commander-in-chief yesterday said there were “numerous definitions” of the promise to defend an ally in case of an attack. “I’m going to give you an exact definition when I get there,” Trump added.

Trump has long railed against European Nato allies not spending enough on defence and “freeloading” on US military might. In response to that, today’s summit is focused on pledging that this will change: a promise that all allies will spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035.

Notwithstanding Spain’s refusal to sign up to that pledge, Europe has delivered what Trump asked. Hence the deep fear that regardless of what they do, he will hang European capitals out to dry.

“President Trump’s comments calling into question the very definition of Nato’s Article 5 collective defence guarantee is a bad signal to our adversaries, and an even worse one to our allies,” said Torrey Taussig, former director of European affairs at the White House National Security Council.

One European official was more blunt: “We gave him what he wanted, and now he’s screwing us anyway.”

Chart du jour: Home from home

Ukrainians fleeing the war with Russia have found jobs more easily than other refugees, thanks to their “temporary protection” status in the EU, coupled with many countries desperately seeking workers.

Green gripes

The EU cannot keep watering down its climate ambitions, EU climate and competition chief Teresa Ribera tells Barbara Moens and Alice Hancock.

Context: The bloc will present legislation next week setting out how the EU can cut emissions by 90 per cent until 2040, compared with 1990 levels. The European Commission first committed to that target last year in a very different context, but did not set out how to actually reach it.

Almost 18 months later, the 90 per cent goal has become politically toxic as some EU governments — and the commission itself — have become less keen on climate policy amid the bloc’s economic woes.

Many capitals are pushing to make the target more flexible, for instance allowing countries to count the negative emissions of carbon capture, or international carbon credits, which let companies pay for their emissions. Some also want to let faster-moving sectors account for more emissions reductions, and let struggling sectors decarbonise more slowly.

In an interview with the FT, Ribera said that flexibilities were fine “to the extent that this does not undermine or water down what we need to do”.

She said the key was to be “consistent, comprehensive and not watered down to the extent that we cannot recognise a clear pathway”.

Including international carbon credits — something the EU’s scientific advisory board has explicitly advised against — was “intellectually sound and politically sound,” Ribera said. She added that using such credits for 3 per cent of the target, a figure endorsed by the German government, is “a huge number”.

“The pathway to become fully decarbonised by 2050 cannot be: we remain in our comfort zone and then we send to our children the huge effort to fully reduce their emissions between 2045 and 2050. It has to be consistent,” Ribera said.

What to watch today

1. Nato leaders’ summit in The Hague.

2. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sign an agreement with the Council of Europe to set up a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine in Strasbourg.

3. Gavi vaccine alliance holds pledging summit in Brussels.

Now read these