How is asking for fair proportional funding of european defense something we should be responsible for?

I understand we benefit from that too, but why should we carry the burden more than the direct beneficiaries?

The US benefits more from its forward bases in Europe than the European countries do. This isn't 1976. Russia isn't a direct military threat at this point in time.

In south east asia the argument can be seen differently - but even so, the US protects SK, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia to keep open the South China Sea. If that benefit disappeared the US wouldn't be as vigorous in its defense.

The reason presidents prior kept NATO together was because it is an extremely strong alliance that can protect each other's economic interests. If the US loses NATO now, they are simply no longer hegemon.

You got it backwards. The second Air Force in the world is the US Navy. The US Navy has 8 nuclear lead aircraft carrier groups. AFAIK, neither Russia nor China have nuclear aircraft carriers.

I think the US would be fine without NATO. The US projection would be mostly undamaged. Not so much the rest of the allies. It's the rest of the NATO that benefits from that projection (e.g. Somali pirates missions).

BTW I very much do NOT want NATO to disband. I think it's a great alliance. But let's be realistic. The US pays for alsmost 1/4 of the NATO direct spending, and 2/3 of the indirect spending:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-still-distorting-nat...

That’s all good but what’s wrong with fair proportionate funding? It’s not like the EU doesn’t benefit the same we do.