Has Trump had enough? Hungary could be strongly hit by tougher defence demands

After the Iran conflict, Donald Trump signalled a tougher approach towards NATO, while Marco Rubio raised similar concerns, suggesting that US support may become more conditional. Under this emerging approach, countries that fail to contribute more could find themselves at a disadvantage – a scenario that may prove particularly risky for Hungary.

In recent days, Trump has once again sharply criticised European allies, arguing they failed to support the United States during the Iran crisis. Speaking at a previous investment forum in Miami, he said NATO partners had made a serious mistake.

“I think a tremendous mistake was when NATO just wasn’t there. They just weren’t there. It’s going to make a lot of money for the United States because we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on NATO, hundreds protecting them, and we would have always been there for them,” the US president said.

In his remarks, he also indicated that Washington would expect greater financial contributions from its allies in exchange for continued protection, and that concrete proposals are already taking shape which could significantly reshape how NATO operates.

In Germany, discussions are already underway about plans attributed to Donald Trump that would push allies to take on a greater share of defence spending.

According to The Telegraph, several key changes are being considered:

• the United States has been weighing a reduction of its military presence in Germany
• NATO members could be expected to increase defence spending to as much as 5% of GDP
• countries that fail to meet these targets could be sidelined in key decision-making
• this could affect joint operations, enlargement decisions and even the practical application of Article 5
• the proposals may be formally presented at a future NATO summit

Currently, the official benchmark stands at 2% of GDP, meaning the proposed level would be more than double, posing a serious challenge for many member states, including Hungary.

This shift would favour countries willing to spend more and cooperate more closely, likely giving them greater political weight within the alliance. In practice, this could mean that smaller or politically outlying states – including Hungary – receive less attention and lower priority in the allocation of military support, particularly from the United States.

Hungary could drift to the margins of allied protection under Trump’s NATO stance

In this evolving environment, Hungary may come under both financial and political pressure. Meeting NATO expectations would require a significant increase in defence spending, yet fiscal space remains limited.

In recent years, high deficits, public debt and uncertainty surrounding EU funds have constrained Hungary’s economic room for manoeuvre, making it difficult to rapidly mobilise additional resources for military spending.

At the same time, European alternatives may offer no automatic safety net. Proposals to extend France’s nuclear deterrent to other European countries would likely come with political conditions and be reserved for states closely aligned with Western partners.

Countries perceived as taking a more critical stance on Ukraine or maintaining closer ties with Russia could find themselves excluded from such arrangements, and Hungary’s standing within the European Union is already divisive in the context of the war in Ukraine.

Several Western partners have criticised the Orbán government’s position, particularly its approach to Russia and its reluctance to support certain joint EU measures.

• We recently reported that a comment by Szijjártó sparked renewed “Huxit” speculation, underscoring the increasingly tense relationship between Hungary and the European Union.

Rubio calls NATO situation “very disappointing”

Criticism of NATO’s functioning has also been echoed by Marco Rubio, who described the relationship between the United States and the alliance as “very disappointing” in an interview with Al Jazeera. A transcript of the conversation was later published by the US State Department.

Rubio cited specific examples, noting that some European allies – including Spain – did not grant US forces access to their bases or airspace during the Middle East conflict.

“At some point, we have to ask ourselves what benefit this provides to the United States,” he said.

According to the Secretary of State, one of NATO’s key advantages for Washington is the ability to maintain a military presence in Europe. However, if that access becomes restricted, it affects the very foundations of the alliance.

Rubio argued that the alliance may need to be reassessed after the war, stressing that NATO can only function properly if it remains mutually beneficial for all parties.

Hungary balancing between three power centres

Hungary’s position is shaped not only by NATO expectations but also by wider geopolitical dynamics. The United States is pushing for higher contributions, while leading EU states such as France and Germany are strengthening their own defence cooperation frameworks.

Meanwhile, Russia remains a central factor in Europe’s security environment, particularly in the shadow of the war in Ukraine. Hungary thus operates within a triangular dynamic, balancing between Washington, Brussels and, in certain respects, Moscow – a situation that inherently limits its room for manoeuvre.

This diplomatic balance has visibly shifted in recent years. The government of Viktor Orbán has seen relations with several key EU member states deteriorate, while maintaining a more open stance towards Russia and aligning more closely with Donald Trump’s political approach on certain issues.

This dual positioning may offer short-term flexibility, but it also carries long-term risks in a system increasingly defined by unified political and financial commitments.

Cover image: Whitehouse.gov