President Donald Trump did not merely criticize NATO.
He publicly warned that the 32-nation defense bloc could unravel over its response to the war in Iran, signaling a possible withdrawal if allies do not step up.
Asked in an interview with The Telegraph whether he would consider ending U.S. membership in the alliance after Operation Epic Fury, Trump said it was “beyond reconsideration.”
He did not hide his view of the alliance’s durability.
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and [Russian President Vladimir Putin] knows that too, by the way,” he added.
The remark crystallizes a core theme of his approach to American security: strength first, and let others carry more of the burden.
The question of withdrawal is complicated by law and process. Trump’s stance comes even as a 2023 law — co-authored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio, now secretary of state — vests that power in Congress, not the president.
Even then, NATO rules impose a one-year notice period before an exit takes effect. Critics say that leaves room for political maneuvering, but supporters argue it reinforces accountability to the American people.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
Max Bergmann, a former state department official and the current director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that Trump’s stance is pointing to larger tensions.
“There was no consultation with the Europeans about this war, and the closing of the Strait is a direct result of the U.S.-Israeli military operations,” Bergmann said. His assessment frames the maneuver as a clash over who bears the risks of a high-stakes confrontation in the region.
It is also fair to note the broader critique that accompanies Trump’s rhetoric. “It’s in some ways a clear deflection for the failures of the U.S. military campaign, and sort of saying ‘Well, it’s your problem now,’” Bergmann added.
That line captures the argument that Washington should not shoulder a global security load alone, even as it insists on clear accountability from allies.
NATO’s strategic architecture is hard for any ally to overlook. “NATO is built around the United States serving as the backbone of European security,” Bergmann said.
“It’s not defenseless because Europeans haven’t spent money. It’s defenseless because if you remove the backbone from an entity, then the appendages don’t work. And that is the fundamental dilemma that Europe faces.”
The critique, while pointed, also signals that European partners understand the stakes if the alliance loses U.S. leadership.
Poland’s defense leadership weighed in with a tempered realism. Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz acknowledged NATO’s dependence on Washington, while noting that the alliance “works both ways.”
Amid the emotions surrounding Donald Trump’s words, one must keep a cool head, he wrote. “There is no NATO without the USA, but there are no strong United States without allies either.”
European observers also warned about the consequences of wavering. Stefan Kornelius, the spokesman for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, told reporters,
“This isn’t the first time he’s done this, and since it’s a recurring phenomenon, you can probably judge the consequences for yourself. I simply want to state on behalf of the German government that we are, of course, committed to NATO.” The message is that alliance cohesion remains a shared priority, even as the rhetoric intensifies.
On the British side, Prime Minister Keir Starmer reaffirmed a careful stance. “I’ve been absolutely clear that this is not our war and we’re not going to get dragged into it,” he said.
“NATO is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen, and it has kept us safe for many decades, and we are fully committed to NATO.”
Behind the scenes, White House channels signaled activity at the highest levels. A White House official said the secretary general of NATO, Mark Rutte, is expected to meet with Trump in Washington next week.
That indicates an effort to manage the alliance’s cohesion even as the president tests the limits of U.S. commitments.
In this moment, those around President Trump point to the leadership of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth as crucial. They argue that American force projection and a credible threat of withdrawal are tools to secure better terms for U.S. interests and stronger allied performance.
The debate over NATO’s future is unsettled and deeply consequential. Supporters of the Trump approach contend that American leadership remains nonnegotiable.
They maintain that a strong, direct line to Europe’s security framework is necessary, not merely optional, and that accountability must be built into every partnership.
The question remains whether the alliance can adapt quickly enough to maintain unity when strategic costs and political risks are so visibly intertwined with reality on the ground.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.