I don’t think you ever really cease to amaze anyone on this site with your nonsense. Anyway...
Without the United States of America there is no NATO. At the end of the day, the only things that kept the Soviets at bay, regardless of the impotent NATO, was the fact that the United States did have very large military bases in Europe. Massive armor, infantry and aviation assets to repel anything the Russians through at Europe. For decades, leading up to the GWOT, the military training doctrine was still based on fighting the Soviets in the forests and mountains of Europe.
The Soviet Union is gone and has been for a while. With it, should have gone NATO and the ability of all those European countries, whose leadership hates the US but loves the US dollar, to squander their money on lavish social spending and not being able to defend themselves.
As for two more countries, that just two more countries that are in the alliance that the US will be obligated to help. Sh*t has to end at some point.
NATO's primary purpose is deterrence. The stronger the alliance is militarily, the greater the deterrent, and the less chance U.S. troops would ever have to be committed. Realistically, if Russia were to initiate hostilities with NATO, Finland and especially Sweden are very unlikely to be the target, so the chances of adding them being the cause if a war is negligible. The most likely target is one of the Baltic states, so having two more countries with stronger militaries -Sweden - and advantageous geography Finland - is much more likely to deter a war than to cause one.
If Hawley’s not just trolling and wants the European countries to contribute more he would support adding Finland and Sweden. Both are relatively rich and motivated to strengthen NATO’s military capability.
His current position is incoherent.