Donald Trump arrived at the NATO summit not to reassure America’s allies, but to demand their loyalty. He accused them of failing to support the United States in the war against Iran, again threatened to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe, and reiterated that Greenland should belong to Washington. All this while demanding more money, more weapons, and greater commitment from America’s European partners.
The criticism of Europe’s low defense spending is legitimate. But the way Trump turns that criticism into a threat weakens the Alliance. NATO cannot become a commercial contract renegotiated with every crisis, nor a dinner bill split at the end of the meal.
NATO rests on a political and military premise: every ally knows it will not stand alone in the face of a threat. That confidence cannot depend on the mood of the President of the United States, agreement with the justification for a military intervention, or a willingness to support every decision made in Washington.
When Trump suggests that American protection depends on the obedience of its allies, he is not strengthening the Alliance. He is stripping it of its most important element: predictability.
NATO cannot become a commercial contract renegotiated with every crisis, nor a dinner bill split at the end of the meal.
The timing could hardly be more troubling. After repeatedly portraying negotiations with Iran as being close to a breakthrough, Trump now says that negotiating with Tehran is “a waste of time” and that, in his view, the ceasefire memorandum “is over.”
NATO members are under no obligation to automatically join every U.S. war. Article 5 establishes collective defense in response to an attack against an ally; it is not a blank check for military operations undertaken unilaterally.
Trump does, however, deserve one unintended credit: he has made it impossible for Europe to ignore its own vulnerability. Strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities is no longer merely a response to Russia or the war in Ukraine. It is also a precaution against the possibility that the United States may no longer be a reliable ally. Europe still needs the United States, but it can no longer organize its entire security architecture around Washington.
The paradox is clear. Trump demands that America’s allies become stronger, yet threatens to punish them when they act as sovereign nations. He calls for unity while questioning the borders of a NATO member. He demands loyalty while treating collective defense as a tool of political leverage.
NATO can withstand higher defense spending. But no alliance can endure when its principal guarantor also becomes its greatest source of uncertainty.
