As tensions soar following the United States’ direct strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, global attention is now turning to the Netherlands, where U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to attend a high-stakes NATO summit on Tuesday. This will be Trump’s first NATO gathering since winning re-election, and anticipation is high—not just for his arrival, but for what the summit might mean for the alliance’s future.

Trump has long criticized NATO allies for depending too heavily on U.S. military support. Now, with growing global instability and a revived American administration that’s more unpredictable than ever, European leaders are scrambling to reassure Washington of their commitment—and to ensure that the U.S. doesn’t scale back its presence in Europe.

“There were moments just weeks ago when we weren’t sure if he’d even show up,” one senior European diplomat admitted. “With Russia and China watching closely for signs of division, that kind of uncertainty could’ve been disastrous.”

In fact, the summit has been carefully designed to appeal to Trump. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has centered the agenda around a bold promise: European members will increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035—up from the longstanding 2% target.

The hope is to convince Trump that Europe is finally serious about its own security, and to avoid confrontations by keeping the discussions narrowly focused on financial contributions.

However, those plans now hang in the balance. Iran has retaliated against the U.S. strikes by launching missiles at American bases in Qatar and Iraq.

The crisis in the Middle East could keep Trump in Washington—or, if he does attend, force the summit’s focus to shift. That risks diplomatic clashes, especially as many European leaders preferred a diplomatic resolution to the Iran issue, rather than military escalation.

Trump has already been promised a symbolic victory. The new defense spending target was meant to showcase European compliance with his demands. “This summit is about credibility,” said U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker.

Yet even this success is showing cracks. Spain claimed it secured an exemption from the 5% pledge, though Rutte denied that. Other countries are also pushing back, facing tight budgets and mounting political pressure at home.

Still, the underlying reality remains: Europe cannot afford to alienate the U.S.—the alliance’s nuclear and military backbone. That pressure helped Rutte bring most European leaders (except Spain) on board with the spending deal. But even then, former U.S. NATO Ambassador Julianne Smith cautions that “with Trump, nothing is guaranteed.”

There are deeper concerns, too. It’s unclear whether the U.S. will endorse a summit statement naming Russia as NATO’s primary threat. Trump’s conciliatory tone toward Moscow and his coercive approach to Ukraine have already eroded European confidence in the U.S. as a steadfast ally.

Tensions escalated further on Friday night when Trump defended the 5% spending target but insisted that the U.S. wouldn’t need to meet it: “I don’t think we should—but I think they should. We’ve been supporting NATO so long…”

While blunt, Trump’s stance isn’t unique. Past presidents, including Barack Obama, signaled a pivot away from Europe toward strategic concerns in the Indo-Pacific. What makes Trump different is his unpredictability and blunt transactional style.

The U.S. currently has about 100,000 troops stationed across Europe, including 20,000 in NATO’s eastern flank—deployments ordered after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But these numbers may not last. U.S. defense officials are reviewing troop levels and budgets, and many expect cuts later this year. Ukraine may also lose U.S. financial support, adding to regional uncertainty.

Despite all this, some NATO members like Poland remain optimistic. Spending 4.7% of its GDP on defense—more than any other NATO country—Poland aims to build Europe’s most formidable land force. For Warsaw, which borders Ukraine and remembers life under Soviet domination, defense is non-negotiable.

Elsewhere in Europe, the situation is more fragile. In Spain, debates over military spending have ignited political tensions and threatened the stability of the ruling coalition.

To ease the financial strain, NATO has proposed splitting the 5% pledge into two parts: 3.5% for direct military spending, and 1.5% for defense-related infrastructure, such as cyber defense or expanded seaports.

This model also aligns NATO’s targets more closely with U.S. spending levels, offering a psychological win without matching the U.S. dollar-for-dollar.

But the reality remains: funding this buildup will require painful trade-offs. Countries may need to raise taxes, increase borrowing, or cut public services. Estonia has experimented with new taxes, while Italy—burdened by debt—may face steep borrowing costs.

The UK, in its recent Strategic Defence Review, acknowledged the need for more military investment but stopped short of preparing its public for the sacrifices required.

The timing is also crucial. NATO wants the 5% target met within 7 to 10 years, but Secretary General Rutte has warned that may be too slow. With Russia’s war economy in full swing, he believes Moscow could strike a NATO member within five years.

Still, defense spending alone won’t solve the problem. European forces suffer from inefficiencies and duplication—178 different weapons systems and 17 tank models across the EU, for instance.

Pooling resources would increase efficiency, but national pride and domestic defense contracts make such cooperation politically sensitive and unlikely to be resolved at this summit.

So what can we expect?

That depends largely on whether Trump shows up—and how he decides to engage. His ambassador believes this could be a defining moment.

“A watershed,” one senior official called it—possibly the most consequential NATO summit since the Cold War. The moment Europe begins to match the U.S. on defense—and finally starts to take full responsibility for its own security.

….

Kenya Rocked by Deadly Protests Over Economic Hardship

At least eight people have been confirmed dead in Kenya following widespread protests against soaring living costs, unemployment, and alleged government corruption.

The unrest has escalated into violent clashes between demonstrators and security forces, with eyewitnesses reporting chaotic scenes as police deployed tear gas and live ammunition to disperse crowds in major cities.

The protests reflect public outrage over inflation that has rendered basic commodities unaffordable.

Demonstrators accuse the government of failing to provide relief or accountability, particularly in light of persistent allegations of corruption and mismanagement.

Hospitals in affected areas have been overwhelmed with casualties, including both protesters and security personnel.

The Kenyan government has condemned the violence and urged citizens to exercise their rights peacefully.

Authorities have promised investigations into the fatalities, but many remain skeptical about whether justice will be served. Human rights organizations have decrying what they describe as excessive force by law enforcement.

Many fear that without meaningful engagement and structural reform, the unrest may continue.

The situation continues to unfold, with many calling for transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding civil rights.