Trump's NATO Turnaround: From threatening to pull US out to 'daddy' of the alliance
President Donald Trump delivered a resounding endorsement of NATO this week, marking a sharp turnaround in his years-long, often contentious relationship with the alliance.
Once known for blasting allies over defense spending and even threatening to pull out of NATO altogether, Trump now appears to have had a change of heart.
"I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries," Trump said after the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague.
The pivot comes as NATO nations more than doubled their collective defense spending target – raising the bar from 2% to 5% of GDP.
The president's renewed embrace of the alliance follows years of friction, high-profile clashes with world leaders and controversial comments. Yet at this year's summit, the tone was strikingly different.
Trump was welcomed by Dutch royals, praised by the NATO secretary-general – who even referred to him as "daddy" – and returned home lauding European allies for their patriotism. "It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them," Trump told reporters.
The transformation is as dramatic as it is unexpected.
Trump arrived at the NATO summit on a high note, following U.S. strikes that crippled Iran's nuclear infrastructure. According to American and allied intelligence sources, the operation set back Tehran's nuclear ambitions by several years.
The strike was widely seen as both a show of strength and a strategic warning – not just to Iran but to NATO adversaries like Russia and China.
"He really came in from this power move," said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a former NATO official and current chairman of Lithuania's national security committee.
"Among some, definitely Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Nordic Europe, this attack, the use of those really sophisticated weapons and bombers, was the rebuilding of the deterrence narrative of the West, not just of America."
Trump repeatedly called NATO "obsolete," questioning its relevance and slamming allies for failing to pay their "fair share."
"It's costing us too much money... We're paying disproportionately. It's too much," he said in March 2016.
He criticized NATO for lacking focus on terrorism, later taking credit when it created a chief intelligence post.
Trump softened his tone after becoming president.
"We strongly support NATO," he said after visiting Central Command. "We only ask that all members make their full and proper financial contribution."
He continued to push for members to meet the 2% target by 2024.
Trump privately threatened to pull the U.S. from NATO unless allies increased spending.
"Now we are in World War III protecting a country that wasn't paying its bills," he warned.
Despite the posturing, he called NATO a "fine-tuned machine" after extracting new spending commitments. He also accused Germany of being a "captive of Russia" over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
The drama continued, this time with French President Emmanuel Macron calling NATO "brain-dead."
"NATO serves a great purpose. I think that's very insulting," Trump responded.
He also clashed with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – calling him "two-faced" after Trudeau was caught mocking Trump on camera.
Trump ordered 12,000 U.S. troops out of Germany, citing Berlin's defense shortfalls.
Trump ignited backlash after suggesting he'd let Russia "do whatever the hell they want" to NATO countries that failed to meet spending obligations.
The remark sparked urgent contingency talks among European leaders about the future of the alliance if the U.S. did not step up to its defense.
The 2025 summit in The Hague unfolded with surprising calm. Trump's hosts rolled out the red carpet. "He's the man of the hour and the most important man in the world," Jeglinskas said.
Jeglinskas credited Trump's blunt diplomacy – however unorthodox – for helping drive real reform "He's brought in tectonic change to the alliance's capabilities by... being himself," he added. "It's a gift for the alliance."
Experts agree NATO's recent revitalization stems from two major catalysts: Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Trump's relentless pressure on allies to boost defense.
"President Trump is riding high this week with two major foreign policy victories," said Matthew Kroenig, vice president at the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center, referencing NATO and the recent U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear program. "It's terrific. I hope he can keep it up."
He added, "Every president since Eisenhower has complained that NATO allies aren't doing their fair share."
Now, Trump was the one who finally got them to listen, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
t42 IoT Tracking Solutions Full Year 2024 Earnings: US$0.032 loss per share (vs US$0.008 loss in FY 2023)
Revenue: US$4.16m (up 3.8% from FY 2023). Net loss: US$1.75m (loss widened by 316% from FY 2023). US$0.032 loss per share (further deteriorated from US$0.008 loss in FY 2023). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period t42 IoT Tracking Solutions shares are up 20% from a week ago. Don't forget that there may still be risks. For instance, we've identified 3 warning signs for t42 IoT Tracking Solutions (2 are concerning) you should be aware of. — Investing narratives with Fair Values A case for TSXV:USA to reach USD $5.00 - $9.00 (CAD $7.30–$12.29) by 2029. By Agricola – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: CA$12.29 · 0.9% Overvalued DLocal's Future Growth Fueled by 35% Revenue and Profit Margin Boosts By WynnLevi – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $195.39 · 0.9% Overvalued Historically Cheap, but the Margin of Safety Is Still Thin By Mandelman – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: SEK232.58 · 0.1% Overvalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What Intertek Group's (LON:ITRK) Strong Returns On Capital Mean
Did you know there are some financial metrics that can provide clues of a potential multi-bagger? Ideally, a business will show two trends; firstly a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an increasing amount of capital employed. This shows us that it's a compounding machine, able to continually reinvest its earnings back into the business and generate higher returns. Ergo, when we looked at the ROCE trends at Intertek Group (LON:ITRK), we liked what we saw. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. For those that aren't sure what ROCE is, it measures the amount of pre-tax profits a company can generate from the capital employed in its business. Analysts use this formula to calculate it for Intertek Group: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.22 = UK£555m ÷ (UK£3.6b - UK£1.1b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). So, Intertek Group has an ROCE of 22%. In absolute terms that's a great return and it's even better than the Professional Services industry average of 17%. View our latest analysis for Intertek Group Above you can see how the current ROCE for Intertek Group compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Intertek Group . Intertek Group deserves to be commended in regards to it's returns. The company has employed 33% more capital in the last five years, and the returns on that capital have remained stable at 22%. Now considering ROCE is an attractive 22%, this combination is actually pretty appealing because it means the business can consistently put money to work and generate these high returns. If these trends can continue, it wouldn't surprise us if the company became a multi-bagger. In short, we'd argue Intertek Group has the makings of a multi-bagger since its been able to compound its capital at very profitable rates of return. Despite the good fundamentals, total returns from the stock have been virtually flat over the last five years. That's why we think it'd be worthwhile to look further into this stock given the fundamentals are appealing. Before jumping to any conclusions though, we need to know what value we're getting for the current share price. That's where you can check out our that compares the share price and estimated value. If you want to search for more stocks that have been earning high returns, check out this free list of stocks with solid balance sheets that are also earning high returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
USA TODAY interviewed experts about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. The '12-Day War' Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Who names wars? Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' Is World War III happening? When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.'
