President Trump cannot unilaterally pull America out of NATO. A 2023 law requiring congressional approval blocks that exit. But experts warn he has already weaponized his power to cripple the alliance from within, poisoning relationships with European partners who refused to back his Iran campaign.
The tension erupted this week when Trump emerged from a closed-door meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and posted that the alliance and America's own partners "understood anything unless they have pressure placed upon them." The White House followed up by declaring "NATO was tested, and they failed."
Trump's complaint centers on two grievances: European nations falling short on defense spending pledges, and their refusal to support his Iran military operations without his consultation. While some allies provided logistical assistance, none backed the decision itself, which Europe views as having been made unilaterally by Washington.
The damage runs deeper than membership
Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, says the real danger isn't withdrawal but erosion of trust. Trump has cast doubt on whether America will honor Article 5, the collective defense pledge that forms NATO's moral core. That uncertainty, Daalder argues, "is going to linger" long after Trump leaves office, particularly as Republican favorability toward NATO membership cools among voters.
Mark Webber, an international politics professor at the University of Birmingham, notes the fear is already palpable in European capitals. "Even if the U.S. stays in NATO, it's unreliable," he tells Axios, capturing how Trump's rhetoric alone undermines the alliance's foundation of mutual commitment.
Short of withdrawing, Trump has numerous tools to inflict damage. The White House is reportedly considering moving American troops out of countries deemed unhelpful, potentially including closing a European base. He could strip U.S. officers from NATO's command structure or block consensus on decisions by withholding approval, a tactic that grinds the alliance's decision-making to a halt.
But there's a catch. Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy, warns that punishing allies "doesn't hurt them too." Relocating bases and troops degrades American military readiness, requires billions in new infrastructure, and makes little financial sense. Daalder agrees: "From a financial perspective, it makes no sense. From a military perspective, it makes no sense."
Trump's rhetoric has also emboldened European nations to reduce their dependence on American military protection, undermining long-term U.S. influence in the region.
Webber remains "reasonably sanguine" about NATO's survival, noting that day-to-day operational work continues "beyond the political line of vision of Washington." The U.S. has historically led efforts to build consensus, even if it now does so with less enthusiasm on issues like climate change that the Trump administration dismisses.
But the volatility could escalate. Trump has teased a "next Conquest" after Iran and repeatedly mused about seizing Greenland, a Danish territory. Daalder says European reaction to such a move "would be even more vociferous" than the uproar from January, when Trump first floated the idea.
Comments