The Pentagon’s decision to leave several major allies out of an upcoming NATO meeting has raised fresh concerns about unity inside the alliance. The gathering, planned for Poland, reportedly includes a select group of NATO members while excluding countries such as the United Kingdom, France and the Baltic states.
The move comes at a sensitive moment for NATO. European governments are already facing pressure to increase defense spending, rebuild depleted weapons stockpiles and respond to Russia’s growing military pressure. Against that backdrop, the decision to create a smaller NATO working group could deepen divisions among allies.
What the NATO Meeting Is About
The meeting is being organized under the direction of Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief. According to diplomats familiar with the planning, the talks are expected to focus on NATO’s future, military capacity and the alliance’s ability to respond to emerging threats.
The invited countries reportedly include Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands. These governments have taken prominent steps to raise defense spending and strengthen their military capabilities.
The group has been described as a practical forum rather than a replacement for NATO’s formal decision-making process. Supporters say smaller meetings can generate ideas more quickly and test new proposals before presenting them to the wider alliance.
However, the format has created unease among North Atlantic Treaty Organization members who were not invited. Britain and France are among Europe’s most important military powers, while the Baltic states have direct experience of the security threat posed by Russia. Their exclusion has therefore attracted attention well beyond the diplomatic world.
Why Allies Are Concerned
The central concern is not simply that some countries were left out of one meeting. The deeper issue is whether the United States is beginning to divide NATO into preferred allies and less favored allies.
One diplomat from an excluded country questioned the criteria used to select participants. The official said the country was meeting the demands placed on it but had received little explanation about the purpose of the discussions.
That lack of transparency is especially damaging in North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where trust and consultation are essential. The alliance depends not only on military hardware but also on confidence that members will be heard when major strategic decisions are made.
A NATO official can argue that a smaller working group is efficient. Yet efficiency becomes difficult to defend when excluded countries include major defense spenders and governments that are central to Europe’s security.
Trump Administration’s “Model Allies” Approach
The meeting follows a broader effort by the Trump administration to reward governments that closely support Washington’s foreign policy priorities.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members over defense spending and burden sharing. His administration has also expressed frustration with allies that have not supported every American position on international conflicts.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has promoted the idea of “model allies” and warned that governments unwilling to support U.S. interests could face consequences. The proposed NATO meeting appears to fit that wider approach.
The problem is that NATO operates as a collective alliance, not as a loyalty club. Governments can disagree with Washington on individual policies while still contributing substantially to NATO’s defense. Treating political alignment as the main test of partnership could weaken the alliance’s ability to work through disagreements.
The Role of Defense Spending
Defense spending is likely to be a major factor behind the meeting. The Trump administration has demanded that NATO countries devote a significantly larger share of their gross domestic product to defense.
Some allies invited to the working group have rapidly increased military budgets or announced plans to expand their armed forces. The selection process may therefore be designed to bring together countries that Washington believes are prepared to deliver more military resources.
Still, defense spending alone does not explain every decision. Britain and France possess major armed forces, nuclear capabilities and extensive operational experience. The Baltic states also have an important role in NATO’s eastern defense planning.
If the meeting is intended to build a stronger NATO, excluding countries with such capabilities could limit the group’s usefulness. It may also create resentment among governments that believe they have already met the alliance’s expectations.
Russia and Europe’s Security Crisis
The timing is particularly important because European security is under severe pressure. NATO governments are dealing with Russia’s military ambitions, shortages in ammunition, and concerns about the long-term availability of American support.
The Baltic countries are among the most exposed NATO members because of their geography and proximity to Russia. Their participation in discussions about NATO’s future would therefore appear strategically significant.
Germany, Poland and the Nordic countries have also become increasingly important to European defense planning. Their inclusion reflects the changing military balance in Europe, especially as governments expand troop numbers, improve readiness and invest in air defense.
The challenge for NATO is to convert those national efforts into a coherent alliance strategy. A smaller group may help coordinate certain initiatives, but it cannot replace broad political legitimacy across NATO.
Could the Bergen Group Strengthen NATO?
Supporters of the initiative say the so-called Bergen Group could act as an engine for transformation. The group’s goal, according to one invited diplomat, is to develop ideas that can later be tested and discussed by the full NATO membership.
There is a reasonable case for this approach. Large alliances often need smaller working groups to examine complex issues, coordinate capabilities, and develop proposals. NATO already uses different formats for specialized discussions and defense planning.
The risk comes from the perception that the group is based on political favoritism rather than practical military needs. If countries believe they are being punished for disagreeing with Washington, the process could produce suspicion rather than cooperation.
For the initiative to succeed, the United States would need to explain its membership criteria and clarify how the group relates to NATO’s existing institutions. It would also need to assure excluded allies that the format is temporary, functional, and open to wider participation.
What This Means for NATO
The immediate consequence may be diplomatic frustration. The longer-term consequence could be a decline in trust between the United States and European allies.
NATO has survived disagreements over defense spending, military operations and foreign policy. Its strength has traditionally come from the ability of members to argue inside the alliance without questioning the basic commitment to collective defense.
A system that divides NATO into favored and unfavored members could make that balance harder to maintain. Governments may become less willing to share sensitive information or support American initiatives if they believe access to decision-making depends on political obedience.
For Europe, the issue is even more serious. European governments are being asked to take greater responsibility for their own security while still relying heavily on American military power. If Washington simultaneously limits the influence of important European allies, it could accelerate calls for greater European defense autonomy.
The Test Ahead
The next test will be whether the Pentagon presents the meeting as a practical defense initiative or as a political ranking of NATO members.
A credible process would publish clear objectives, explain the criteria for participation, and ensure that recommendations return to the full alliance. It would also involve excluded countries in later consultations, particularly those with major military capabilities or direct exposure to Russian pressure.
NATO does need stronger defense planning, faster procurement and more capable European forces. But those goals require cooperation rather than public divisions.
The Pentagon’s smaller meeting could eventually contribute to a more capable NATO. Yet if allies conclude that Washington is separating the alliance into insiders and outsiders, the meeting may do the opposite and make NATO less united at the moment it most needs cohesion.
