Trump vs. NATO: The Alliance Had It Coming

Opinion|April 2, 2026

Let's be honest. When Donald Trump called NATO a "paper tiger" this week, the howls of outrage from European capitals rang a little hollow. Because deep down, many of those same governments know he has a point — even if they'd never admit it.

Trump told Britain's Telegraph he was reconsidering US membership in NATO — "beyond reconsideration," in his words — and doubled down to Reuters, saying he was "absolutely" thinking about withdrawing from the alliance. (CNN) The trigger? NATO allies denied American military aircraft permission to use their bases for operations against Iran, and declined to help enforce freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. (Bloomberg)

Cue the outrage. Cue the press conferences. Cue Polish defense ministers and Baltic foreign ministers lining up to condemn Trump as reckless and dangerous. Poland's defense minister called the threat "reckless, dangerous, and playing directly into the hands of adversaries." (NBC News) Strong words. But where was that energy when the US came calling for help?

The free-rider problem is real.

For decades, the United States has shouldered a disproportionate share of NATO's defense burden while European members coasted on American security guarantees. Trump didn't invent this grievance — it has been a source of frustration across administrations, Republican and Democrat alike. At the 2025 Hague summit, most allies finally committed to investing 5% of GDP on core defense requirements by 2035 (Time) — a concession that only came after years of relentless American pressure. Not exactly a voluntary show of commitment.

America's own National Defense Strategy bluntly describes non-US NATO members as having 13 times the GDP of Russia (Center for Strategic and International Studies) — meaning Europe has the wealth to defend itself. It simply hasn't chosen to. When a member of a mutual defense alliance refuses to show up when called, it raises a legitimate question: what exactly is the mutual part?

The legal reality.

Before Europe spirals into full panic mode, there's a practical brake on all of this. Congress passed a law in 2023 — co-sponsored at the time by Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State — barring the president from withdrawing the US from NATO without a two-thirds Senate vote. (CBS News) Senate Republican Thom Tillis put it plainly: the president cannot withdraw from NATO, but "can poison the well" and "make it functionally defunct" if he wants to. (CNN)

That last sentence should keep European leaders up at night far more than the legal question. A US that stays in NATO in name only — withholding intelligence, pulling back forces, ignoring Article 5 — is arguably more dangerous than a clean break.

America doesn't need NATO. NATO needs America.

Here is what gets lost in the outrage: the United States is negotiating from a position of extraordinary strength. The US remains the undisputed leader in global arms exports, controlling around 34% of the market, backed by billions in government investment, a vast industrial complex, and unmatched technological superiority. (RaillyNews) No other nation comes close to its ability to project military power across multiple theaters simultaneously.

That strength gives Washington options. The US has already been pivoting toward purpose-built bilateral and minilateral partnerships — such as Task Force Philippines for the South China Sea — that are faster, leaner, and built around shared interests rather than legacy obligations. (The Soufan Center) These aren't replacements for alliances; they're proof that America can construct the security architecture it needs, on its own terms, with willing partners.

The same logic applies to Europe. A renegotiated transatlantic security arrangement — one where European nations genuinely carry their weight in exchange for a clearly defined American commitment — would be far more durable than the current setup, where Washington guarantees everything and asks for little in return. Europe's long-discussed strategic autonomy is no longer optional; it is the only way to reconcile US prioritization of China with credible deterrence against Russia. (EPC) The question is whether Europe gets there on its own terms, or under duress.

What Europe needs to hear.

This is a wake-up call, not a death sentence. The alliance that held the line against Soviet expansionism, that anchored European stability for 77 years, is worth saving. But saving it requires Europe to stop treating American security guarantees as a birthright.

The Iran war exposed a fault line that was always there: the US and its European partners do not share the same threat perception, the same strategic priorities, or the same appetite for risk. That gap cannot be papered over with summit communiqués and spending pledges that come due in 2035.

America has the leverage, the strength, and the alternatives. If NATO wants to survive in any meaningful form, the burden of proof is now on its members — not the country that has been carrying the load for 75 years.

The views expressed are those of the author.

By Joe Perez