Every Trump Threat to Abandon NATO Hollows It Out

 

News Analysis

Every Trump Threat to Abandon NATO Hollows It Out

 

Doubts that the United States would come to the aid of NATO allies increase each time, prompting Europeans to consider an alliance without Washington.

 

Steven Erlanger

By Steven Erlanger

Steven Erlanger writes about European and Middle Eastern security and diplomacy and has covered NATO for decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/02/world/europe/trump-nato-iran.html

April 2, 2026

Updated 7:34 a.m. ET

 

Since his re-election, President Trump has threatened to leave the NATO alliance several times. On Wednesday, he did it again, frustrated that European nations had refused to join the so-far indecisive United States-Israeli war against Iran.

 

But the more he disparages NATO and threatens to abandon it, the more hollow it becomes.

 

The alliance, built after World War II to deter the Soviet Union and keep the peace in Europe, is in crisis, with some questioning whether it can survive. The Mideast war has brought existing doubts about American commitment to the alliance to the fore, argued Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to NATO.

 

“It’s hard to see how any European country will now be able and willing to trust the United States to come to its defense,” he said. “Hope, perhaps. But they can’t count on it.”

 

In his speech to the nation Wednesday night, Mr. Trump did not mention NATO, to the relief of allies.

 

But a senior European official said he thought most Europeans did not believe that Article 5, the NATO commitment to collective defense, still had teeth. The United States now seems part of the problem of world disorder, the official said, speaking anonymously given the sensitivity of the topic. The country is no longer the solution and the guarantor of last resort, he said.

 

On Thursday, speaking in Seoul, President Emmanuel Macron of France was explicit: Mr. Trump was undermining NATO with his repeated threats to pull out of it.

 

“If you create daily doubt about your commitment, you hollow it out,” he said.

 

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, reflecting Mr. Trump’s unhappiness with European allies, warned that relations with NATO would need to be re-examined after the war in Iran is resolved.

 

“Without the United States, there is no NATO,” Mr. Rubio said. “An alliance has to be mutually beneficial. It cannot be a one-way street. Let’s hope we can fix it.”

 

Others are not so sure. The United States is the nerve center and bones of the alliance, because Washington had always wanted it that way. But Europe is hardly helpless, and it is spending much more money on the military now, in part because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in part because of Mr. Trump’s demands, including previous threats to leave the alliance unless its members “paid up.”

 

Even if Washington were to pull out the 70,000 U.S. troops in Europe, a European NATO would be conceivable, senior European officials say. The NATO command system and infrastructure remains, and Europeans could fill most of the jobs. There have been various studies about what Europe would need to do to replace the American contribution in conventional warfare.

 

One study, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies last May, gave a rough cost estimate over 25 years of $1 trillion. Bruegel, a research institution in Brussels, did a similar study a year ago with the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and estimated that Europe could need 300,000 more troops and an annual increase in military spending of at least $290 billion in the short term to deter Russian aggression.

 

Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant Secretary General for defense investment, wrote his own detailed study of the gaps Europe would need to fill to replace the United States.

 

Trump officials have said that Europeans should manage conventional defense while Washington maintains its nuclear umbrella.

 

The deadline to do so, most agree is, 2029. Gen. Carsten Breuer, who leads the German military, has warned that by that point Russia will most likely be able to launch a serious attack on NATO. But Germany and NATO forces can put up a very good fight before then, he said.

 

As Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland said of Europe last year, “We don’t need to be as good as the United States. We only need to be better than Russia.”

 

What is irreplaceable is the American nuclear umbrella over Europe, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed to maintain. But European nations are actively discussing alternatives.

 

Britain and France, the two nuclear powers in Europe, along with Germany and Sweden, have been discussing how to extend their nuclear umbrella to at least approximate the American one.

 

France has said it will increase its own nuclear stockpile, and Britain has said it will recreate an air-based leg of nuclear-capable bombers to add to its nuclear submarines. Still, the British nuclear deterrent is dependent on American technology, and the French one is designed to protect French interests as decided by its president.

 

The impulse for Europe to do more has been underscored by Mr. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran without consultation and then demand help. To many, like Bruno Maçães, former secretary of state for European affairs for Portugal, the American “excursion” looks like a defeat.

 

“This will give a big push to Europe,” he said. “It’s not just wanting the U.S. to be there for us; it’s the sense now that the U.S. won’t be capable even if it is willing.” For Europe, he said, “it’s making the choice between autonomy and America sharper every month.”

 

It was telling that Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain responded to Mr. Trump’s threat on Wednesday by saying that Britain, America’s closest ally, should move closer to Europe. “As the world continues down this volatile path, our long-term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union,” he said.

 

Despite Mr. Trump’s frustration, many wonder how destroying the alliance would benefit the United States.

 

Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to Washington, said on social media that leaving NATO would be a gift to a militarizing Russia. “Let’s be clear that removing US troops from Europe would finally allow Russia to declare strategic victory: pushing the US out of Europe has been the primary strategic objective of the Kremlin, in Soviet times and ever since,” he wrote. “Is that something the US can allow to happen??”

 

For Nicholas Burns, a former American ambassador to NATO, pulling out would be “catastrophic for America as a global power.” He would be astonished if Congress agreed, he said.

 

NATO is a defensive alliance, and it came to America’s aid after Sept. 11. But in Iran, Mr. Burns said, “we have not been attacked, but initiated an attack outside of NATO,” without asking for allied help or even informing allies in advance. Even now, he said, the United States has not formally asked NATO for help. But to assuage Mr. Trump, he said, most NATO countries are already offering, once the war ends, to help keep open the Strait of Hormuz, as Mr. Trump has demanded.

 

That coalition for the postwar patrols of the strait now includes some 35 countries, organized by Britain and France.

 

Reporting was contributed by Jeanna Smialek in Brussels, Adam Goldman in London and Lara Jakes in Rome.

 

Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France, Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union.