Bilal Gamal 

A rift is growing between the United States and NATO, driven by President Donald Trump‘s repeated threats to withdraw from the alliance and U.S. dissatisfaction with the stances adopted by NATO member states towards the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran.In this context, The Wall Street Journal, citing officials within the Trump administration, has reported that Washington is considering a plan to withdraw U.S. forces from NATO countries deemed "non-cooperative" in the war against Iran and redeploy them to countries that have provided greater support for U.S. operations against Tehran.Driving FactorsA number of key drivers help explain why Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO. The most prominent include the following:1. Limited NATO Support for the U.S. War Against Iran: The positions adopted by NATO member states during the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran have caused widespread frustration within the U.S. administration. Several European countries have refused to allow American <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-meets-nato-chief-iran-war-strains-alliance-2026-04-08/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">fighter jets</a> to use their airspace during the conflict, while also declining to deploy naval assets in support of U.S. efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.For instance, <a href="https://www.eurasiantimes.com/trump-plans-revenge-on-nato/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">France and Spain</a> denied U.S. access to their airspace for strikes against Iran. Madrid also barred Washington from using Naval Station Rota and Morón Air Base for offensive operations. Similarly, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/e2347e81-19b2-4cd5-aea4-ff6bacf0e71b" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Italy and the UK</a> initially refused to allow the use of their military bases, although London later reversed its position and permitted their use for defensive purposes.These developments reinforced Trump’s doubts regarding the alliance’s contribution to advancing U.S. strategic objectives. He has repeatedly linked such positions to what he views as NATO’s "limited support" for the United States during crises, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-lashes-nato-mark-rutte-meeting/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">asserting</a> that the alliance "is not there when the United States needs it."Following a meeting with Trump on April 8, 2026, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte revealed that the U.S. president expressed "clear disappointment" with the stance of several alliance members. This reflects Trump’s broader tendency to <a href="https://politiken.dk/edition/news/art10798049/Donald-Trump-has-not-abandoned-his-ambitions-in-the-Arctic" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">assess</a> NATO’s value based on the extent to which it provides political and military support to the United States in its global conflicts—a pattern also evident in his frustration towards NATO allies who opposed the U.S. assuming control over Greenland.2. U.S. Insistence on "Burden-Sharing": Trump’s withdrawal threat may also intend to increase pressure on NATO allies to reduce the financial burden borne by the United States. His long-standing emphasis on "burden-sharing" seeks to compel European allies to assume a greater share of defense and security costs.Washington currently <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-says-the-us-doesnt-get-much-out-of-nato-membership-but-is-that-true-279798" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">contributes</a> approximately $750 million annually in direct funding to sustain NATO operations, in addition to around $4 billion allocated to the European Deterrence Initiative aimed at countering potential Russian threats. Maintaining U.S. military forces across multiple European countries further imposes additional costs.In 2025, the United States accounted for roughly 60% of total NATO defense spending, with <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/european-nato-defense-spending-rose-by-almost-20-in-2025/a-76544678" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">its expenditures</a> reaching $838 billion, compared to $574 billion collectively spent by all other member states. This disparity continues to drive U.S. pressure on allies to increase their defense budgets.Indeed, prior U.S. pressure led NATO leaders at the 2025 <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-says-commitment-to-nato-mutual-defense-guarantee-depends-on-your-definition" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Hague</a> NATO Summit in June 2025 to agree to raise defense spending to approximately 5% of GDP by 2035. This target includes 3.5% allocated to conventional defense expenditures—such as weapons and military equipment—and 1.5% dedicated to military infrastructure and defense investment.Within this context, the threat of U.S. withdrawal may represent a strategic maneuver designed to accelerate European compliance with these commitments, rather than waiting until 2035.3. Reinforcing the "America First" Doctrine in the 2026 National Defense Strategy: Since his first term, Donald Trump has consistently advanced the "America First" doctrine as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy.This approach was reaffirmed in the National Defense Strategy issued by the U.S. Department of Defense in January 2026, which emphasized prioritizing threats to American interests over commitments to allied security in Europe.The <a href="https://apnews.com/article/national-defense-strategy-hegseth-trump-china-greenland-08fdbe1f8e3f557d688f289fbf4a2c84" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">document</a> argued that it is neither the responsibility nor the strategic interest of the United States to compensate for the security shortcomings of its allies, while also criticizing their reliance on U.S. funding for defense.This reflects a broader shift within the Trump administration away from the traditional collective security framework that has long underpinned U.S. strategy, toward a more transactional model centered on advancing direct American interests.4. The U.S. Turn Toward the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere: Trump’s threats regarding NATO membership coincide with a broader reorientation of U.S. strategic priorities. Increasing attention is being directed toward the Indo-Pacific region—particularly the South China Sea—as part of intensifying competition with China, rather than the traditional focus on Europe in the context of rivalry with Russia.These efforts to transfer greater security responsibility to Europe are taking place amid the <a href="https://behorizon.org/the-end-of-an-era-what-the-us-retreat-from-european-security-means-for-the-world/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">rapid rise</a> of China as a major technological, economic, and military power, widely perceived in Washington as a direct challenge to U.S. global dominance. Future U.S. strategic engagement is therefore expected to concentrate increasingly on the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan and surrounding maritime domains.At the same time, the Trump administration appears intent on boosting U.S. influence in the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/redrawing-global-boundaries-the-united-states-china-and-the-viability-of-spheres-of-influence-in-the-21st-century/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Western Hemisphere</a> and countering Chinese presence in the region. This approach was evident in the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the removal of President Nicolas Maduro, as well as in heightened pressure on Cuba and discussions surrounding potential military action.Taken together, these trends point to a broader strategic shift in U.S. defense spending and operational focus toward regions deemed more critical to its geopolitical interests than Europe.Multiple ConstraintsEfforts by Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO face several significant obstacles, which can be outlined as follows:1. Senate Approval Requirement for Withdrawal: Trump’s efforts face legal constraints. In 2023, the U.S. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48868" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Congress</a> passed legislation prohibiting any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without obtaining approval from the Senate by a two-thirds majority, or the passage of separate legislation by Congress authorizing such a move.2. Bipartisan Congressional Support for NATO: Support among both <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5815848-trump-nato-tensions-rise-withdrawal-threats/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Democratic and Republican</a> lawmakers for maintaining the U.S.–NATO alliance represents an additional obstacle.For example, Democratic Senator Chris Coons and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell issued a joint statement emphasizing that "Americans are safer when NATO is strong and united." They also highlighted NATO’s historical support for U.S. military operations, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, as evidence of the alliance’s commitment to advancing U.S. strategic objectives.Similarly, Republican Senator Thom Tillis warned that Trump’s ambitions to withdraw from NATO could "undermine U.S. national security interests," describing such a move as a strategic opportunity for Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.Opposition from lawmakers across both major parties could therefore translate into substantial political and legislative pressure on the president to abandon the idea.3. Public Support for NATO Membership: Despite Trump’s repeated threats and criticism of NATO allies, American public opinion remains broadly supportive of continued U.S. membership in the alliance.<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/10/politics/nato-trump-iran-us-countries" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Polling data</a> indicates that approximately 70% of Americans view NATO membership as beneficial for the United States. Another <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/americans-back-nato-unless-theyre-trump-supporters-survey/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">survey</a> found that 61% consider continued membership to be at least moderately important, while 52% believe NATO provides at least moderate benefits to U.S. security. A <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-trump-iran-war-russia-9.7158165" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">third</a> poll showed that 66% of respondents believe the United States has benefited from its NATO membership.These figures reflect a clear public preference toward maintaining U.S. participation in the alliance, which may constrain Trump’s ability to act on his threats.4. Concerns Over Strategic Repercussions: There are growing concerns within the United States regarding the potential negative implications of a NATO withdrawal for Washington’s global strategic posture.Former U.S. Army Europe commander Ben Hodges warned that closing U.S. military bases in Europe—if such a scenario were to occur—would weaken the United States’ strategic position not only in Europe, but also in Africa and the Middle East.Hodges also criticized Trump’s statements accusing NATO members of failing to support the United States during the war against Iran, arguing that such rhetoric risks undermining allied trust in Washington. This could, in turn, push European allies to explore alternative ways of safeguarding their strategic interests amid declining confidence in U.S. commitments.5. European Concerns Over Rising Russian Threats: European fears of a growing Russian military threat could <a href="https://lediplomate.media/analysis-trump-issues-ultimatum-nato-amid-iranian-crisis/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">encourage</a> NATO member states to pursue negotiations with Trump aimed at stabilizing transatlantic relations.There are concerns that Russia could exploit divisions within NATO to prolong and expand its war in Ukraine. A potential U.S. withdrawal from NATO would represent a strategic opportunity for Moscow and could weaken military support for Ukraine—particularly given doubts about the alliance’s ability to deter Russian threats without the U.S. security umbrella.Pragmatic AlliancesIn conclusion, Trump’s threats to withdraw the United States from NATO appear to be largely pragmatic in nature. The administration is seeking to redirect resources toward regions and strategic priorities deemed more critical to U.S. interests, rather than continuing to bear the costs of defending a region perceived—within Trump’s framework—as less strategically valuable.Looking ahead, Trump may increasingly favor bilateral alliances with select European states over commitment to a collective security framework in which the United States shoulders the bulk of the burden. Such arrangements would likely be structured around criteria that include burden-sharing, mutual political and economic interests, and alignment with U.S. foreign policy positions—particularly on issues such as the Iran conflict and Europe’s relations with China.

What’s Driving the U.S. and NATO Apart?