Former U.S. President Donald Trump is set to return to the White House for a non-consecutive second term on January 20, 2025. This raises numerous questions about the future of American foreign policy, particularly concerning NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Trump’s victory over his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris—who had maintained close ties with NATO allies and embraced strategies aligned with the current president, Joe Biden—could signify shifts that may drastically affect the tenets regulating relations within the alliance.
Trump’s return to power opens the possibility of a significant overhaul of U.S. policies towards NATO at a time when the alliance is facing major challenges, notably amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine. In this context, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg congratulated Trump on his election victory, expressing eagerness to work with him again to bolster security and peace through the alliance. Indeed, NATO has played a crucial role in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, with the U.S. taking a leading role under Biden in providing extensive military assistance.
As speculation about Trump’s stance on NATO grows, essential questions emerge regarding the future of U.S. policy under his leadership, especially in light of his previous criticisms of allies’ financial commitments within NATO. Trump has frequently stated that he would not defend NATO countries against Russian threats unless they fulfill their financial obligations. Conversely, there are remarks from others, such as British Defense Secretary John Healy, emphasizing the critical importance of U.S. participation in NATO due to its vital role in European stability.
Thus, uncertainties remain regarding the future of U.S.-NATO relations amidst Trump’s potential return to power, as challenges loom over both internal dynamics and external threats.
Assessing NATO’s Relationship with the Biden Administration (2021-2025)
Under President Biden, NATO experienced a strengthening and cohesion among its members, intensifying their geopolitical ties. Biden has been a proponent of the U.S. remaining within the alliance, actively advocating for deeper connections among its members and institutional collaborative efforts. He underscored this commitment at NATO’s anniversary celebrations, stating that “Washington will maintain its sacred commitment to NATO because defending every inch of NATO territory also ensures our own security.” This statement reflects the robust alignment between the Democratic administration and the alliance.
The relationship between NATO and the Biden administration can be summarized by the following points:
Strengthening NATO Ties
Biden’s presidency marked the end of a period characterized by tensions between Washington and NATO allies during Trump’s tenure. Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated during the alliance’s anniversary that “the U.S. and Europe are stronger together in NATO because Europe cannot be secured without NATO.” In light of potential complications regarding Trump’s victory, the Senate passed an amendment to the (Keen-Rubio) law on July 19, 2023, which prevents the U.S. President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without a two-thirds majority approval in both the House and Senate. Additionally, Congress passed a law on December 23 that prohibits any president from suspending or withdrawing U.S. membership in NATO without similar legislative consent.
Moreover, amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, the U.S. supported Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO after they abandoned their neutral stances to avoid conflict with Russia. Finland joined NATO in 2023, followed by Sweden in 2024, expanding the alliance to 32 member states. This period has significantly deepened cooperation and understanding among NATO members, revitalizing the alliance, as evidenced by the inclusion of new states during active conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Support for Ukraine Since the Outbreak of War
The war between Russia and Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022, has tested NATO’s resilience and institutional strength. Member nations have united against common threats, responding collectively to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. The alliance, under U.S. leadership, has provided various military, economic, and logistical support to Ukraine, with the U.S. being the largest contributor of military assistance, amounting to nearly $110 billion since the war’s onset.
These efforts have been driven by a commitment to prevent direct intervention, adhering to NATO’s defense nature as outlined by Article 5, which emphasizes defense against attacks on member territories. Despite calls for more robust intervention from some quarters, NATO’s primary mission remains defensive, as acknowledged in recent summits.
In April 2024, NATO foreign ministers convened in Brussels to propose the establishment of a €100 billion aid fund for Ukraine over five years, alongside joint training operations involving 90,000 NATO troops, signaling readiness for potential escalatory scenarios with Russia.
Trump’s Perspective on NATO
Trump’s relationship with NATO spans two presidential terms: his first from 2017 to 2021 and the upcoming one starting January 2025. Notably, during his inaugural term, Trump maintained a contentious stance towards the alliance, marked by strong criticism of member states’ financial contributions.
Tensions and Critiques (2017-2020)
Trump’s presidency began with immediate focus on NATO, with his administration bringing its financial shortcomings into the spotlight. Trump described NATO as “obsolete” and called for “reform” while emphasizing the necessity for members to pay their fair share of defense costs, arguing that the U.S. disproportionately shouldered financial burdens. At the NATO summit in July 2018, he heightened his demands for European allies to increase defense spending, asserting that the U.S. covers the vast majority of the alliance’s budget.
Notably, Trump left the door open for reconsidering U.S. involvement in NATO if financial obligations remained unmet by the allies, stating that “if you don’t pay your shares, we may withdraw from NATO.” Although at times he showed support for NATO’s collective defense, especially against Russian threats, his overall approach was contingent on increasing the financial contributions from member states.
Trump’s Future Administration and Implications for NATO
Looking ahead, Trump’s second term may revisit and reassess NATO from a more isolationist perspective, encapsulated by his “America First” agenda. This approach could significantly curtail U.S. influence in Europe, possibly precipitating a decline in NATO’s international standing while exacerbating existing challenges to European security in light of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis.
Economic Considerations
The potential discourse around U.S. withdrawal from NATO reflects a range of deep-rooted concerns. Trump’s campaign website articulates the need for the U.S. to reassess NATO’s mission, emphasizing a pivot toward confronting China instead of maintaining heavy involvement in European security matters. His perspective reflects rising discord with European allies over prioritizing the alliance’s role amidst the new geopolitical landscape.
A Shift in Focus Toward China
From Trump’s viewpoint, U.S. foreign policy should pivot primarily toward addressing the challenges posed by China’s rise, perceived as a direct threat to American economic stability and geopolitical standing. Such a focus may detract from ongoing concerns regarding Russia as European allies emphasize their need to counter threats from Putin, thereby complicating collective security efforts.
NATO’s Preparations for Potential U.S. Withdrawal
Imagining NATO without the U.S. poses significant challenges, as American leadership has been integral to the alliance’s cohesion. A possible American exit could disrupt effective coordination among NATO members and diminish its strategic decision-making capabilities, leading to a pivotal crossroads for the alliance’s future.
Strengthening European Defense Capacity
Should the U.S. withdraw, a recalibration of European defense strategies may be necessary. The EU’s commitment under Article 42.7 of its treaty could assume greater significance, despite being less robust than NATO’s Article 5. This restructuring might involve creating a common European defense framework, which would raise concerns over centralization of power and provoke nationalist sentiments across member states.
Conclusion
The prospect of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO remains a complex issue with multifaceted ramifications, contingent on how European nations respond to Trump’s financial demands and NATO’s inherent challenges. Pressures exerted by the U.S. on European allies may serve as a prompt for them to meet their financial obligations, potentially averting a full withdrawal while maintaining the transatlantic relationship. However, Trump’s unpredictable political inclinations necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation of NATO’s policies and strategies amidst evolving security dynamics.
The post-2024 era signifies a critical juncture for NATO, as decisions made during this period could either reinforce unity and adaptability or drive the alliance towards disintegration amid emerging global threats.
References
[1] Marc Perelman, NATO’s Stoltenberg Expects Us to Remain ‘Committed Ally’, Even If Trump Returns, France 24, February 19, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/4spk7pdh
[2] Zachary B. Wolf, Congress acted to protect NATO But it might not be enough to stop Trump, CNN,
February 13, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/4cnrsu38
[3] Protect NATO from Donald Trump? The U.S. Congress just passed that into law, CBC/ Radio-Canada, December 15, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/5ba5tmam
[4] Meuser, Dan. “Aid to Ukraine Must Come with Accountability and Oversight.” U.S. Congressman Dan Meuser. 2023, https://meuser.house.gov/media/press-releases/aid-ukraine-must-come-accountability-and-oversight#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20American%20taxpayer%20has,%E2%82%AC58%20billion%20in%20loans. Accessed 27 November 2024.
[5] Christina Pazzaneseand Harvard Staff Writer, Should NATO step up role in Russia-Ukraine war?, The Harvard Gazette, May 4, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/r2nek7cy
[6] Federico Baccini, NATO Discussing 100-Billion Dollar Fund To Aid Ukraine Over Five Years, Eunews, April 2024, https://tinyurl.com/235cey38
[7] Helene Cooper, NATO Putson A Show of Force in The Shadow of Russia’s War, The New York Times, April 24, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/5xpnenc3
[8] Years Of NATO: US, Europe ‘Spat’ Over Russia, China Conflicts; Time to Break Free from US Hegemony?, The EurAsian Times, April 4, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/2ratyvun
[9] Hans Binnendijk, R. D. Hooker, Jr., and Alexander Vershbow, NATO Cannot Survive Without America, Foreign Affairs, May 13, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/ypue7rks
[10] Years Of NATO: US, Europe ‘Spat’ Over Russia, China Conflicts; Time to Break Free from US Hegemony? Op.Cit
[11]What If Trump Withdraws the US From NATO? Consequences And Implications, Fitch Solutions, February 8, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/7s6jadx8
