{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=773A8F5D-9FFD-4C52-8DF8-DBD550088A24", "McConnell Delivers Remarks on NATO, Greenland, and the Credibility of U.S. Alliance Commitments", "2026-01-14", "2026", "2026-01", "Republican", "Senate", "KY", "Mitch McConnell", "M000355", "www.mcconnell.senate.gov", "mcconnell", "https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases", "scraper", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks today on the Senate floor:\n\n\u201cFor years, the most pressing concern about the future of NATO was whether and when European allies would take the obligations of collective defense more seriously. But today, the biggest questions about the most successful military alliance in the history of the world have to do with United States:\n\n\u201cWhether America still recognizes our interests as an anchor of trans-Atlantic security, an arsenal of democracy, and a global leader \u2013 not a regional power.\n\n\u201cI need to make a number of points here. And it\u2019ll be useful to begin with some history:\n\n\u201cThe Second World War claimed tens of millions of lives, displaced tens of millions more, and left the old world crippled by food shortages and hyperinflation. And after defeating Hitler\u2019s genocidal bid for world domination, America\u2019s leaders understood that our interests and those of our European allies were linked, whether we liked it or not.\n\n\u201cAs George Marshall put it in 1947, quote, \u201cthe United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.\u201d\n\n\u201cAmerican security and stability depended on European security and stability. Not least because conflict with Nazi Germany was succeeded immediately by the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union. Millions in Eastern Europe had gone from living under Nazi tyranny to living under Soviet tyranny.\n\n\u201cAnd the American people understood the stakes:\n\n\u201cIn 1947, more than three quarters of Americans rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was merely building its defenses against future attack. Instead, they reported they thought Russia was bent on conquest.\n\n\u201cIn 1948, two thirds of Americans said America and western European friends should join a mutual defense pact.\n\n\u201cBy 1949, with the North Atlantic Treaty in the works, the question got more specific: Would the American people support, quote, \u201ca promise of mutual aid from all members of the alliance if any single member nation is attacked\u201d?\n\n\u201cThis was a higher bar \u2013 the commitment that would become Article 5 \u2013 and yet, an even bigger majority of respondents again said yes. Of course, there was still controversy and opposition. There were still isolationists ignoring the lessons of the decade.\n\n\u201cBut after years of neglect for the national defense\u2026 After the folly of appeasement and the failure of deterrence\u2026 After pouring the equivalent of 37% of America\u2019s GDP into the Arsenal of Democracy and burying 400,000 American servicemembers in the process\u2026 The American people knew the costs of war. And they knew they\u2019d rather preserve the peace.\n\n\u201cOf course, they didn\u2019t intend to do it alone. Americans told pollsters that their early skepticism toward post-war alliance commitments stemmed from a fear that allies would rely too heavily on American leadership.\n\n\u201cThis would be a recurring theme. But, importantly, for much of NATO\u2019s history, the U.S. leaders most concerned about burden-sharing were also fierce defenders of the alliance. They criticized allies because they wanted NATO to work \u2013 not because they wanted to score political points at home.\n\n\u201cTake our former colleague, Sam Nunn. On multiple occasions, including the 1974 and 1985 NDAAs, he pushed to force allies to carry more of the costs of U.S. forward deployment. And yet, when a majority leader of his own party tried to force a phase-out of U.S. troops from Europe, our former colleague from Georgia fought back\u2026 because he understood the value of American leadership and the importance of European security to our own.\n\n\u201cThe strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance is contingent on its leaders taking collective defense seriously. That\u2019s why I\u2019ve always called out laggards and urged European allies to share more of the burden. But I\u2019ve also given credit where it\u2019s due. And the simple truth is that our allies have undertaken a profound transformation:\n\n\u201cThis year, Poland will spend 4.8% of its GDP on defense. Estonia and Lithuania will spend 5%, and Latvia will hit that goal in 2027. Alongside Nordic neighbors like Norway and Denmark, who have deployed to harm\u2019s way alongside American comrades, NATO\u2019s newest members, Sweden and Finland, are each on track to meet the alliance\u2019s new spending target years ahead of schedule.\n\n\u201cGermany has dramatically increased defense spending and even amended its constitution to allow for deficit spending on defense. Whether Europe\u2019s largest economy is serious about its defense transformation is no longer up for debate.\n\n\u201cNot every ally is making such impressive progress. But no one can claim ignorance of what\u2019s at stake. As Poland\u2019s Prime Minister put it bluntly, the choice facing Europe is, quote, \u201cmoney today or blood tomorrow.\u201d Perhaps that\u2019s why \u2013 in addition to investing heavily in their own defenses \u2013 European allies are continuing to dwarf America\u2019s assistance to Ukraine\u2026 by a factor of 10 to 1.\n\n\u201cOur allies\u2019 long holiday from history is over. That\u2019s good news. And it must continue. But what about America?\n\n\u201cEuropean allies continue to grow their defense budgets, but ours have stayed flat across successive Administrations. We\u2019re the ones leaving capacity unused and political will untapped. We\u2019re talking; not doing.\n\n\u201cThe President was right to call for a major increase in defense spending. But the annual defense budget request from OMB this year doesn\u2019t keep pace with inflation. The FY26 topline won\u2019t come close to covering growing costs and requirements \u2013 like the multi-year munitions contracts the Department of Defense rightly wants to sign.\n\n\u201cWe should keep the cost \u2013 and value \u2013 of America\u2019s own commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance in perspective. Take the year 1982, right in the thick of the Reagan buildup that won the Cold War. In FY82, sustaining U.S. military operations in Europe accounted for less than 6.5% of defense outlays.\n\n\u201cRemember: Winning World War II meant surging defense spending to 37% of America\u2019s gross domestic product. But at the climax of the Cold War, when we were spending 6% of GDP on defense, sustaining a deterrent military presence in Russia\u2019s backyard took up less than 6.5% of the annual defense budget.\n\n\u201cThat sounds a lot less like an entangling alliance than a smart investment in preventing catastrophic war. But what did the American people say?\n\n\u201cWell, in 1989, with the Soviets on the ropes, 75% said that NATO ought to be maintained beyond victory. Thirty years later, in 2019, an even greater majority gave the same response\u2026 Even before Putin\u2019s escalation in Ukraine.\n\n\u201cWhat about now? With Russia waging a war of conquest \u2013 and China, Iran, and North Korea pitching in \u2013 has NATO outlived its useful life? Is the notion of U.S. interests in Europe just \u201ca Cold War relic\u201d? Or, to paraphrase some of Moscow\u2019s most useful idiots, has NATO\u2019s existence and growth provoked Putin\u2019s aggression?\n\n\u201cLet\u2019s get a few things straight:\n\n\u201cFor decades, America and our allies bent over backward to welcome Russian participation at NATO, including through the Partnership for Peace program, and to integrate Russia into the global economy. America sent billions of dollars in economic assistance and encouraged massive investment of private capital in the hopes that Russia would choose to live in peace with the nations it formerly enslaved and with the West.\n\n\u201cPutin has repeatedly rejected such peaceful coexistence. He\u2019s chosen bloody neo-Soviet empire-building, instead. To the extent that NATO has grown, it\u2019s been in response to Russian aggression.\n\n\u201cIf Putin is looking for someone to blame for Sweden and Finland\u2019s accession to the alliance\u2026 he ought to look in a mirror. His own brutality has validated the decisions of sovereign nations to join NATO and align with the West.\n\n\u201cAs for the utility of the alliance for our interests: America\u2019s adversaries are choosing to work together. Responding by going it alone would be strategic malpractice. Courting Russia and its GDP of 2.5 trillion dollars\u2026 At the expense of longstanding bonds with Europe and its GDP of 27 trillion dollars? That doesn\u2019t even align with U.S. economic interests, let alone our values.\n\n\u201cLast year, Europe invested three-and-a-half trillion dollars directly in the United States. In recent years, two thirds of our European allies\u2019 growing investments in foreign military technologies have been in American-made systems. Together, we make up nearly half of the global economy. If we\u2019re serious about global competition with China, these are relationships worth tending. These are allies we ought to be working with, not against\u2026\n\n\u201c\u2026Which brings me, Mr. President, to the matter of Greenland.\n\n\u201cThe President is right that Arctic security is a central concern in our strategic competition with major adversaries. And he\u2019ll find similar interest in Arctic security among allies like Denmark, which is investing billions of dollars in its own capabilities in the region.\n\n\u201cAmerica\u2019s recognition of Denmark\u2019s political and economic interests in Greenland dates back to World War I. The Danes have been close partners in the Arctic since World War II. And brave Danish soldiers fought and died in America\u2019s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.\n\n\u201cThere is no ambiguity here. Close ties with our northernmost allies are what make America\u2019s extensive reach in the Arctic possible. And I have yet to hear from this Administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us.\n\n\u201cUnless and until the President can demonstrate otherwise, then the proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s allies \u2013 plural. Because this is about more than Greenland. It\u2019s about more than America\u2019s relationship with its highly capable Nordic allies. It\u2019s about whether the United States intends to face a constellation of strategic adversaries with capable friends\u2026 or commit an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm and go it alone.\n\n\u201cMake no mistake: All of the good progress the President has made in pushing allies to spend more on defense\u2026 The increased burden-sharing\u2026 The demand for American-made capabilities\u2026 All of it would be for nothing if his Administration\u2019s ill-advised threats about Greenland were to shatter the trust of our allies. Following through on this provocation would be more disastrous for the President\u2019s legacy than withdrawing from Afghanistan was for his predecessor.\n\n\u201cMr. President, the American people know this. Just 17% say they think trying to take control of Greenland is a good idea. Instead, they understand intuitively that strong alliances make America more secure:\n\n\u201cThe Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted late last year, found that 68% of Americans hold a favorable view of the trans-Atlantic alliance\u2026 And 76% support Article 5 and a U.S. military response in the event of an attack on a NATO ally. In just six months, that measure grew by 5%.\n\n\u201cAnd here\u2019s the most interesting finding: Among Americans who initially said they would support a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, nearly one in five changed their minds when they learned how our European allies are stepping up their commitments to collective defense.\n\n\u201cMr. President, I\u2019m happy to provide these findings to anyone in Washington who still bets against the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance. But the American people, who already understand the stakes, may not be so patient.\n\n\u201cThey\u2019re telling anyone who will listen that when they say peace through strength, they mean what President Reagan meant:\n\n\u201cLeading with moral clarity\u2026 and distinguishing clearly between aggressors and victims.\n\n\u201cInvesting in the Arsenal of Democracy\u2026 and equipping friends who fight for themselves.\n\n\u201cPreparing to win wars\u2026 And upholding the alliances that deter them.\u201d", 1, "2026-04-04T05:28:40Z", "2026-04-04T05:30:10Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=773A8F5D-9FFD-4C52-8DF8-DBD550088A24"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.7974680047482252, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}