According to officials familiar with the plan, NATO members are placed in different tiers based on defense spending, military cooperation and operational support.According to Politico, the assessment was reportedly prepared ahead of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington, in which officials reviewed how each member contributes to collective security.The idea was mooted last year by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He had previously outlined the concept of rewarding countries that meet US expectations on defense spending and military cooperation.“Model allies who have stepped up, such as Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favors,” he said. “Allies who still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences,” Hegseth said.The Pentagon has also reinforced this approach in its National Defense Strategy, stating that cooperation will be prioritized as allies ‘do their part’ for collective defense and shared security goals.One of the diplomats said the list seemed to reflect that concept. “There’s a naughty and nice tabloid in the White House so I think the thinking is the same way,” the person said, according to Politico.The assessment is also linked to recent tensions within NATO over the Iran conflict, particularly the Strait of Hormuz crisis, and US military operations. Officials said the rankings could influence decisions on which countries are offered more military cooperation or strategic support in future campaigns.The Trump administration has expressed frustration with allies who did not support U.S. requests during the conflict, including participation in operations or access to military bases.

Division among NATO members

Reports suggest that countries such as Romania and Poland were more cooperative, allowing the US to use air bases and logistics support during Middle East campaigns. Poland, already one of NATO’s highest defense spenders, also hosts about 10,000 US troops and covers most of the related costs. Romania’s expanded Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base has also been used for US military operations.In contrast, countries including Spain and some other Western European allies reportedly resisted or delayed US requests for aid. Meanwhile, Baltic countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have been consistently praised for meeting or exceeding defense spending targets.Officials said possible consequences for countries placed lower on the list could include reduced troop deployments, fewer joint exercises or changes in military sales and cooperation. However, he also acknowledged that relocating the US military presence within Europe would be costly, complex, and logistically difficult.One European official highlighted that troop redeployment options would also largely shift U.S. forces between allies rather than removing them from Europe entirely.

Limited clarity on enforcement

Despite the discussion, officials have provided little clarity on how strictly the ranking system will be enforced or what the specific ‘rewards’ or ‘penalties’ will be. Some diplomats familiar with the discussions said the administration itself was unsure how to implement the idea.One European official described the concept as still not fully developed, suggesting that troop movement is an option, but it could put more strain on US resources than punish allies.However, the White House has defended its approach. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the United States has long supported allies who now need to contribute more.“Although the United States has always been there for our so-called allies, the countries we protect with thousands of troops were not there for us during Operation Epic Fury,” he said, referring to the Pentagon’s designation for the Iran-related operation.“President Trump has made clear his views on this unfair dynamic, and as he said, the United States will remember that,” he said.US Senator Roger Wicker said it is “not helpful when American leaders talk about our alliances with derision,” warning that alliances bring ‘political, strategic and moral benefits’ to the country.Wicker said, “It is not helpful when American leaders talk about our alliances with derision. We must be clear about the many political, strategic, and moral benefits our alliances provide to the country.”Former officials have also questioned whether the Trump administration has the capacity to pursue such a sweeping realignment of alliance relationships while managing ongoing global crises.