4/11 – Geopolitics & Diplomacy Analysis

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), long regarded as the backbone of Western security, faces perhaps the most significant crisis in its 76-year history. For decades, NATO has relied on the military might and strategic leadership of the United States. But now, under President Donald Trump’s renewed tenure, that foundation is eroding. Trump has fundamentally challenged NATO’s twin pillars: the shared commitment to collective defense and the understanding of a unified threat landscape. The alliance, once formed to contain Soviet expansion, must now contend with the possibility that its founding and leading member may be preparing to abandon it altogether.

A Fraying Commitment

The alarm bells began ringing even before Trump’s formal return to office. He has long expressed disdain for NATO, and upon resuming power, he wasted no time signaling a sharp departure from longstanding U.S. policy. He openly questioned whether the United States would come to the defense of NATO members that, in his view, failed to “pay their share”—a reference to defense spending levels—even though nearly every alliance member has dramatically increased its defense budgets since 2014.

The situation escalated when, in February, the United States stood alone among NATO members in voting against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This rare display of opposition not only placed the U.S. in alignment with Russia over its own allies but also struck a blow to NATO’s moral and political cohesion.

Trump’s undermining of NATO’s Article 5—its sacred commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all—has shaken the alliance’s credibility. These actions have left allies like Germany questioning whether NATO, as currently structured, will even exist in the near future. Chancellor Friedrich Merz captured this sentiment when he noted that it remains uncertain whether NATO, in its current form, will survive the next few months.

Alarmed by Trump’s anti-NATO posture, the U.S. Congress acted preemptively in 2023 by passing legislation prohibiting any president from unilaterally withdrawing from the alliance without congressional approval. Ironically, this law was co-sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, who now serves as Trump’s secretary of state. However, legal scholars warn that such a law may be challenged in court, and the Supreme Court—traditionally deferential to the executive branch on matters of foreign policy—could allow Trump to proceed unimpeded, especially if he were to argue that the law itself infringes on presidential powers.

Whether or not the U.S. formally exits NATO, Trump’s rhetoric and policy signals have already done damage. The alliance has always functioned not merely through legal obligation but through trust—trust that the United States would fulfill its military and strategic responsibilities. That trust has been seriously compromised.

NATO’s Origins and U.S. Centrality

NATO was not originally designed as the robust, standing military alliance it is today. When the United States joined the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, it did so reluctantly and only under strong pressure from European states anxious about Soviet aggression. The alliance transformed after North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in 1950, which demonstrated the risks of surprise aggression by communist powers. From that point, NATO evolved into a full-fledged military organization with a permanent command structure, integrated forces, and joint planning.

At the heart of this transformation was the United States. Washington not only provided the bulk of NATO’s military power—including nuclear weapons—but also insisted on full integration of European military capabilities under a U.S.-led command. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been a U.S. general, reinforcing America’s control of NATO’s strategic direction. American air, land, and naval forces, intelligence infrastructure, communications networks, and nuclear deterrence have long formed the bedrock of the alliance’s defense posture.

Although some members, such as France under Charles de Gaulle, periodically pushed for greater autonomy (France temporarily left NATO’s integrated command in 1966), most European states accepted U.S. leadership in exchange for guaranteed security. That leadership now stands in question.

A History of European Discontent

European frustration with U.S. dominance in NATO isn’t new. During the Vietnam War and again during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance toward the Soviet Union, many European leaders feared being drawn into conflicts that did not reflect their national interests. These tensions spurred efforts to develop greater European strategic autonomy.

The European Union began building a common foreign and security policy in the post-Cold War years, culminating in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty’s mutual defense clause. However, the EU always acknowledged NATO’s primacy for its member states. Even so, the push for European defense capabilities independent of Washington never fully materialized—largely because the United States made it clear that any duplication of NATO efforts would be seen as undermining alliance unity.

In 1998, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright outlined the “three Ds” policy: no diminution of NATO’s role, no duplication of its functions, and no discrimination against NATO’s non-EU members. European defense initiatives were welcome, but only if they strengthened NATO—not competed with it.

Europe’s Wake-Up Call

Now, that policy has flipped. In February, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth addressed NATO leaders with stark clarity: the U.S. would no longer prioritize Europe’s defense and would focus its strategic efforts elsewhere. He demanded that European allies increase defense spending to at least five percent of GDP—a bar far higher than the alliance’s previous benchmark of two percent.

This message was not just a financial demand. It was a strategic retreat. The U.S. has made clear it no longer wishes to be the linchpin of Europe’s security. But having spent decades organizing around U.S. leadership and depending on U.S. military assets, Europe now faces an enormous challenge: reorienting NATO’s structure around European leadership without collapsing the alliance altogether.

The alliance’s new regional defense plans, developed in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, provide a roadmap for this shift. These plans specify the force levels and capabilities required to defend NATO’s eastern, southern, and northern flanks. For these plans to succeed, Europe must not only fill the military vacuum left by the U.S. but also sustain the alliance’s operational cohesion during the transition.

NATO’s future viability now hinges on Europe’s ability to step up. The good news is that many European governments have begun doing just that. At a March EU summit, leaders approved €150 billion in defense borrowing and relaxed budgetary restrictions to enable an additional €650 billion in defense spending over the next decade. Germany—historically cautious on military expenditures—has lifted its budget constraints to enable up to €400 billion in additional spending on defense and Ukraine support. France, Poland, the Baltics, and other countries are also ramping up investment.

These resources must now be used to meet NATO’s regional defense targets. European members should aim to supply at least 75 to 80 percent of the required forces by the early 2030s, with the goal of eventually providing near-total coverage of alliance defense needs. This will include acquiring sophisticated air and missile defenses, satellite communications, intelligence and surveillance systems, and expanding recruitment, training, and military readiness.

However, Europe cannot do this overnight. Even with money and political will, building new capabilities, integrating supply chains, and developing command infrastructure takes time. More importantly, it requires coordination with the United States—especially in areas like nuclear deterrence, where any European expansion would raise significant strategic risks.

Analysis:

Trump’s shift away from NATO is more than a diplomatic break—it’s a strategic realignment that could permanently reshape the Western security order. By withdrawing rhetorical and political support from the alliance, Trump has signaled that the United States no longer sees itself as the default guarantor of European peace. This marks a significant departure from nearly eight decades of U.S. foreign policy, and one that leaves Europe little choice but to plan for an uncertain future.

But Europe should not view this moment purely as a crisis. It is also an opportunity. For too long, European states have underinvested in their own defense, relying on American power to deter threats on their doorstep. Now, the imperative is to build a sustainable, autonomous security architecture that can function with or without Washington. The foundations—financial, political, and strategic—are already being laid.

Still, full decoupling from the U.S. remains a difficult aim. The depth of integration within NATO is not easily undone, and the loss of American capabilities would leave real gaps in areas like nuclear deterrence and intelligence sharing. As such, the most pragmatic path forward is a dual-track approach: prepare for a European-led NATO, but continue to engage the United States as a critical, if no longer dominant, partner.

The alliance’s ultimate test is not whether it can survive Trump, but whether it can adapt. Europe’s collective economy, population, and technology base are more than sufficient to support this transformation. What is needed now is resolve—and the recognition that the future of NATO depends not on past assumptions, but on present commitments.

The age of automatic U.S. leadership in NATO is ending. What comes next will determine whether the alliance evolves into a more balanced, resilient security community—or fractures under the weight of uncertainty. For the first time in its history, Europe must build the means to defend itself, not just in theory, but in practice.