President Trump is meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte next week as the president — once again — says he is weighing pulling the U.S. out of the 80-year-old alliance. During his first term, Trump threatened not to defend fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against Russian aggression if those nations did not spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Now, he is floating the idea of leaving NATO because of the reluctance from member countries to get involved in the Iran war and policing the Strait of Hormuz.
“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself,” the president posted on social media. “The U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.”
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 66% of Americans want to end the conflict with Iran even if the goals the president outlined — including in his Wednesday address to the nation — are not met. Less than a third supported pushing forward. Maybe it’s the gas prices. Maybe it was the revolving door of reasons given for starting the war at its onset. Or maybe, just maybe — after decades of war following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — we’re exhausted from the toll.
That was certainly the backdrop on April 4, 1949, when NATO was founded. In the history of humanity, war has always been devastating. World War I felt so crushing that it was called the Great War — until it wasn’t, because something worse came along. In the 20-year stretch between World War I and World War II, new weaponry was born out of the latest Industrial Revolution, and the latter war, from 1939 to 1945, drew in more than 50 nations and more than 100 million fighters. It was a recipe for previously unimaginable military and civilian losses.
By the time the Axis powers were defeated, more than 3% of the world’s population had been lost in a cesspool of war, famine and disease. That was the backdrop in which NATO was born. The idea wasn’t to drag each other into war but rather work together to prevent war from happening again.
Yes, having a strong military is essential to this model for preventing war, and Trump was correct to call out the other NATO nations for falling short of spending 2% of GDP on defense — a goal the organization set back in 2014. In fact, Rutte recently announced that for the first time in NATO’s history, every member has reached that 2% goal. Last year, the floor was raised to 5%.
“For too long, European Allies and Canada were over-reliant on US military might,” Rutte said in a statement. “We did not take enough responsibility for our own security. But there has been a real shift in mindset.… And as a European, I am proud of what we are doing — the tremendous progress being made.”
It’s progress that might not have happened if not for Trump’s initial threats back in 2018. Regardless of what he and Rutte decide upon with regard to Iran next week, Trump’s bullying negotiation tactics with NATO preceded a seismic change in not only how our allies spend on defense but how they see us and for what causes they are willing to go to war.
Who can blame our allies for not going to fight a war that the U.S. and Israel chose to start? Americans themselves didn’t want this war. And why should the U.S. withdraw from an 80-year alliance over its refusal to escalate a war that most Americans want to end as soon as possible?
Only once has Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” been evoked, and that was following 9/11. Thousands of service members from allied nations lost their lives fighting beside U.S. forces. War has a toll. Even for the victor. Which is why Article 4 says: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
The squabble with NATO because members were falling short of the agreed upon financial obligation did not need to reach the level of threatening withdrawal or abdication of Article 5’s mutual defense. But don’t just take my word for it. Listen to the 18 Senate Republicans who voted to make withdrawal from NATO harder for a president to do, back in 2023. Then-Sen. Marco Rubio co-sponsored the amendment that was added to a defense spending bill. Senators such as Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham were among those who voted to insulate the treaty from the whims of one man.
If Congress wasn’t willing to let this treaty go over money in 2023, it certainly shouldn’t consider leaving over an unneeded and unwanted war of choice in 2026.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
NATO members have demonstrated a meaningful commitment to the alliance by reaching the 2% defense spending goal for the first time in the organization’s history, with the floor subsequently raised to 5%, representing a significant shift in European defense priorities[2][5][6].
The ongoing war with Iran lacks public support, as polling data shows that 66% of Americans want to end the conflict regardless of whether stated objectives are achieved, making withdrawal from NATO over this particular conflict misaligned with constituent preferences[1].
NATO allies should not be blamed for declining to participate in a military conflict that the United States and Israel independently chose to initiate, particularly when Americans themselves oppose the war[1].
Threatening withdrawal from NATO over defense spending disputes was a reasonable negotiating tactic that produced results, but escalating that threat to withdrawal over refusal to participate in a discretionary war represents an unjustified leap[1].
Congress deliberately made NATO withdrawal more difficult in 2023 by requiring either a two-thirds Senate majority or separate legislation, with bipartisan support including Republican sponsors, signaling that the alliance should not be abandoned over policy disagreements[2][4][5].
Different views on the topic
President Trump contends that NATO allies have failed to reciprocate U.S. support during the Iran conflict, with the president stating that “you weren’t there for us” and framing the alliance as a one-way street in which the United States bears disproportionate burdens[1][2].
Trump administration officials argue that if NATO members cannot be relied upon to provide military access and support during critical U.S. operations, the value of continued membership must be reconsidered after the conflict concludes[2].
European nations are characterized as “very bad allies” and “cowards” for their reluctance to assist in securing the Strait of Hormuz, with the administration suggesting this demonstrates the alliance no longer serves American interests[1][3].
Some Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Mike Lee and Thomas Massie, have introduced legislation to withdraw from NATO altogether, with Massie describing the organization as a “Cold War relic” no longer suited to contemporary security challenges[5].
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s efforts to reassure Trump about European commitment have reportedly proven insufficient, with some accounts suggesting the president has even threatened to block weapons transfers to Ukraine as leverage[6].