Anyone else think Trump is on point about getting NATO members to pay what they agreed to?

Personally, while some of them may be a little behind on the commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, I don't think that's good enough reason to threaten the alliance. I don't think that we're literally paying for them, the US spends about 3.6% of it's GDP on defense, and it'd probably be about that much or even more without NATO. Plus, Europe in general is a good strategic ally for us. They have 2 nuclear powers, a solid supply of wealth, and advanced technological capabilities. Their global interests rarely collide with ours in a meaningful way, and still serve as a useful containment measure against Russia. I know many people don't think Russia is so dangerous, and yes, while the chance of an outright war is small right now, the military needs to think in terms of potential capacities. Russia COULD pose a significant risk. They have the only nuclear arsenal that feasibly matches our own, a large contingent of land forces, and enough influence in key regions of the world to be considered a priority rival. Not only that, but the only time the mutual defense pact has ever actually been used, was on our behalf, after 9/11.

So while it's fine to use some soft pressure to try to get them to spend a little more, it's not realistically advantageous to us to threaten the alliance.

I agree with you on the broad outline of what you say .. but tbh, I don't know the conditions of that pledge .. but I do know Trump has a tendency to tell half truths ... So my question is, does that 2% figure have to be reached by a certain time of is it from day 1?