Reform or leave? Trump’s dilemmas over NATO

For some time now, there has hardly been a week in which the White House has not taken a critical view of the way the North Atlantic Alliance operates. A wave of particularly sharp criticism from the U.S. president and his administration emerged alongside the ongoing war in Iran. Trump has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with what he considers insufficient support from European states for Operation „Epic Fury.” 

Trump, Hegseth and Rubio take a swing at NATO

Looking at media statements made both by Donald Trump and by the most important officials in his administration, it is not difficult to see that American remarks on NATO have become increasingly harsh in tone. One could say that criticism of the North Atlantic Alliance from the U.S. authorities has now reached its peak. In his latest interview with The Telegraph, President Trump said he is seriously considering leaving the alliance.  

Interestingly, the publication of the interview comes at a time when both Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, and Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense, have also adopted a critical line. During Tuesday’s press briefing, the Pentagon chief refused to confirm unequivocally the automatic involvement of the United States in any NATO defense operation should member states come under attack.

Hegseth stated that, with regard to NATO, the decision ultimately rests with the president. He added that when the United States requests assistance, access to bases, or overflight rights, it is often met with questions, obstacles, or hesitation. He emphasized that, in the president’s view, an alliance cannot be considered genuine if its members fail to support the United States when it needs them. 

The question of whether the continued U.S. presence in NATO is justified was also raised by Secretary Rubio. In an interview with Fox News, the head of U.S. diplomacy stated that the White House must assess whether NATO is fulfilling its role or has effectively become a one-way arrangement, in which the United States is able to support Europe but is denied basing access and overflight rights when it requires assistance from its allies.

Rubio continued by stating that NATO’s purpose had not been limited to the defense of Europe, but had also included enabling the United States to maintain military bases on the continent in support of its national security. He argued that if the alliance had reached a point where it constrained the United States« ability to use those bases to defend its interests, then it had effectively become a one-way arrangement. He concluded by saying that the United States should therefore ask itself why it is part of the North Atlantic Alliance at all, and whether it should remain in it. He did not, however, refer to examples such as Romania’s support or the U.S. use of Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base.

Is Spain a problem for NATO?

Both Hegseth’s and Rubio’s remarks included references to the use of European bases or permission for American aircraft to fly through the airspace of individual allies. In doing so, both politicians referred to the high-profile dispute with Spain, which recently closed its airspace to American bombers intended to strike Iran. Let us recall that Rota Base is the largest naval base for U.S. troops stationed in southern Europe. 

„The most painful issue for Americans at the moment may be Spain’s opposition, but the stance of Italy or France remains an open question. This is not even about ideological or political matters, but about the entire logistics and the cost burden involved in seeking alternatives to, for example, Naval Station Rota (NAVSTA Rota) or bases used in cooperation with Spain for U.S. Air Force air operations,” said Dr. Jacek Raubo, head of the strategic analysis division at Defence24, arguing that Italy’s policy in this situation is more ambiguous than Spain’s.

„U.S. bases in Italy are to be excluded from support for activities in the Middle East (Operation Epic Fury), but at the same time they are not being closed to other allied activities. The issue of facilities in Sigonella is, of course, crucial,” the expert noted, referring to the air base in Sicily, which also has a U.S. component (U.S. Naval Air Station). Taking these examples into account, in Dr. Raubo’s view, „Europe is becoming highly problematic for American military planners and staff officers.”  

„In previous armed conflicts involving the Americans, it was always important to have the ability to achieve interoperability across the various areas of responsibility of geographic commands, especially in the transfer of forces and assets, as well as in logistics and support processes.” Raubo adds that „at the beginning of the 21st century, this was perfectly reflected in the actions of U.S. EUCOM, the European Command, in support of U.S. CENTCOM, the Central Command responsible, among other things, for the Middle East. In the current situation, U.S. commanders and planners will cope, but the costs will be higher, and that explains the understandable reaction of Donald Trump’s administration. Unfortunately, above all, Spain and its left-wing authorities are striking at a critically important format of transatlantic relations; if others do the same, the effects may unfortunately be felt within NATO,” he concluded.   

Reform, instead of a withdrawal

Trump’s threats to leave NATO are not new, which is why the remarks made for „The Telegraph” should be treated with some distance. Even if Donald Trump were to conclude that he wants to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Alliance, it would not be as straightforward a process as he might imagine. Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty would have to be invoked, and that would probably require congressional approval (U.S. law is ambiguous on this point, so it is highly likely that the country would face an institutional dispute, and the Supreme Court would have to intervene — ed.). 

Leaving NATO is, of course, the ultimate option. In recent days — also thanks to „The Telegraph” — the idea has emerged that another possibility under consideration by the U.S. administration may not be withdrawal from the North Atlantic Alliance, but its far-reaching reform.

The „pay-to-play” plan is said to envisage stripping NATO members that spend 5 percent of GDP on armaments of the right to participate in the alliance’s decision-making process (this would include, among other things, a possible loss of voting rights on matters concerning NATO enlargement). The most important „penalty” for failing to comply with the decisions taken at last year’s summit of the alliance in The Hague would be to exempt such a country from the operation of Article 5. Is such a scenario possible? At present, no information is coming from Brussels that would confirm such an idea.