Key Points
- Trump signals serious intent to pull the US out of NATO
- Rift deepens as allies refuse backing for Iran conflict
- NATO’s collective defence principle faces fresh strain
- Legal hurdles could block a full US withdrawal
- Partial disengagement seen as a real and immediate risk
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump has once again thrust the future of NATO into uncertainty, openly signalling that the United States could withdraw from the alliance in response to growing tensions with its European partners.
His remarks come as Washington presses ahead with military action against Iran without the backing of fellow NATO members, exposing sharp divisions within the transatlantic bloc, according to The Guardian.
Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has long served as the cornerstone of Western collective security. Its defining principle, enshrined in Article 5, commits members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all.
While this clause has only been formally invoked once—after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States—it remains the alliance’s central pillar of deterrence.
Trump’s frustration appears rooted in NATO’s refusal to support the US campaign against Iran. However, the alliance is under no obligation to assist in conflicts that are not defensive in nature or agreed upon collectively. The absence of prior consultation with NATO allies before the US action has further strained relations.
In recent statements, Trump has dismissed NATO as ineffective, describing it as a “paper tiger” and suggesting that withdrawal is no longer merely hypothetical. He has argued that the alliance fails to reciprocate the level of protection the US provides to Europe—claims that overlook NATO’s extensive support for American-led operations, including the long war in Afghanistan.
This scepticism is not new. Trump has repeatedly criticised European nations for insufficient defence spending, accusing them of relying too heavily on American military power. His rhetoric has, however, had tangible consequences: NATO members have committed to significantly increasing defence budgets, with a new target of 5% of GDP by 2035.
Despite these concessions, tensions persist. Trump’s past threats—ranging from encouraging Russia to act against underfunding allies to proposing the annexation of Greenland—have unsettled European leaders and raised concerns about the reliability of US commitments.
Strategically, NATO remains far from obsolete. Its support for Ukraine has been instrumental in resisting Russia’s ongoing invasion, while its broader military presence continues to deter aggression against member states in Eastern Europe. The United States plays a critical role in this framework, providing not only the bulk of NATO’s military capabilities but also its nuclear deterrent.
A US withdrawal would therefore represent a seismic shift in global security. Yet such a move is not straightforward. Legislation passed in 2024 requires either a two-thirds Senate majority or an act of Congress for the US to exit NATO formally.
Nonetheless, experts warn that a president could still weaken the alliance by withdrawing troops, reducing commitments, or disengaging from NATO’s command structures without formally leaving.
Former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder has cautioned that such partial disengagement could be as damaging as full withdrawal, effectively hollowing out the alliance while maintaining the appearance of membership.
For now, Trump’s stance underscores a broader question about the future of transatlantic cooperation. As geopolitical tensions intensify, the durability of NATO—and the US role within it—faces one of its most serious tests in decades.
