
Trump's threats cast dark clouds over this year's NATO summit
That was the assessment of the Trump administration recently offered in a private conversation with a senior European diplomat from a major NATO country. That gloomy view of transatlantic relations is widely shared in Europe, and not just because a leaked Signals chat revealed that the U.S. vice president and secretary of defense privately described Europeans as 'pathetic' geopolitical freeloaders.
Or because of the administration's brusque treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, and relative coddling of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Nor is it simply about Trump's unilateral imposition of tariffs or recent insistence that the European Union was 'formed in order to screw the United States.'
The gloom is not even primarily about Trump's threats to take Greenland from Denmark by force if necessary or to make Canada the 51st U.S. state, even though those comments were deeply insulting to both NATO allies.
At core, the profound unease that has descended over European capitals is about being left largely leaderless at a time of vulnerability and great peril, with the Russian bear on the prowl on the continent, Chinese mercantilism threatening the European economic model and Washington constantly casting doubt over the future of the alliance they have relied on for decades.
The Trump administration has been so slow to appoint senior State and Defense Department officials to key positions in Europe, and so unwilling to issue definitive guidance on a host of major issues, that some senior American military officers on the continent have reportedly taken to asking their European counterparts for insights into what is actually happening back in Washington, D.C.
For all those reasons, the upcoming June 24 to 25 NATO Summit in The Hague is shaping up as one of the most consequential and uncertain in the alliance's history. America's closest allies have a host of questions and the Trump administration is providing few answers.
Will the U.S. follow through on rumored troop withdrawals from Germany, or even from Europe writ large? Will it surrender the position of Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, always held by a senior U.S. military officer in the past, further eroding American leadership in Europe?
Will Trump offer critical backing for a European coalition willing to put troops on the ground to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in the event of a peace deal with Russia? How will the Trump administration react if a settlement is reached and Russia repositions hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened troops on NATO's eastern border? Can Europe even still trust in the American nuclear umbrella?
What NATO allies most fear at the upcoming summit is that President Trump, in a fit of made-for-television pique similar to his Oval Office dressing down of Zelensky, might upend the geostrategic chessboard and walk away.
They recall his outburst last year, encouraging Russia to do 'whatever the hell they want' to any NATO member nation that doesn't meet the alliance's target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. Trump has more recently doubled the ante, saying allies should be spending 5 percent of GDP on defense, even though the U.S. does not even reach that thresholdm spending roughly 3.4 percent of GDP on defense.
Certainly, European allies have not forgotten the havoc Trump unleashed at his first NATO summit in 2018 when he publicly berated allies and threatened to pull the U.S. out of the alliance altogether if they didn't increase defense spending. That pressure, combined with the growing threat of Putin's Russia, has resulted in 23 out of the 32 NATO countries reaching the 2 percent target today, up from three in 2014.
The larger issue is that the transatlantic alliance and its 'one for all, and all for one' commitment, expressed in somewhat vague terms in Article V of NATO's treaty, is built on a foundation of trust. The cracks in that foundation are widening, especially given the disruptions of recent months.
John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, has stated publicly that Trump's ultimate goal remains laying the groundwork for withdrawing the U.S. from NATO.
'Trump has essentially said that the nation was stuck with this consensus since 1945 that the U.S. was going to carry the world on its back, and it turns out that status quo was very brittle,' said author and historian H.W. Brands Jr., speaking recently at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.
After just a few months back in office, he noted, Trump has already upended the expectations other nations have in terms of U.S. foreign policy and security guarantees.
'Other nations that had the expectation that U.S. presidents will all value past commitments, and that they can rely on the United States to the extent that some don't need their own independent foreign and defense policies, like Germany and Japan, are now hearing from the White House that we're not interested in defending the rest of the world,' said Brands.
'When U.S. voters elect a president who insists he wants to make Canada the 51st state, I'm not sure you can ever get back that trust.'
James Kitfield is a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress, and a three-time recipient of the Gerald R. Ford Award for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
19 minutes ago
- UPI
Judge orders Trump to resume processing humanitarian parole extensions
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled against the Trump administration's halting of processing humanitarian re-parole applications. Photo by Chris Kleponis/UPI | License Photo May 29 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration's halt to processing applications of those in the United States under humanitarian parole programs who are seeking to extend their legal status. The ruling on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston orders the Trump administration to restore the processing of applications to extend the stay of immigrants granted legal status in the United States under humanitarian parole programs that have been terminated since President Donald Trump's inauguration. "This ruling reaffirms what we have always known to be true: our government has a legal obligation to respect the rights of all humanitarian parole beneficiaries and the Americans who have welcomed them into their communities," Anwen Hughes, director of legal strategy for Refugee Programs at Human Rights First, said in a statement. The ruling is another legal setback in the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, though it is only a preliminary injunction as litigation continues. On Jan. 20 inauguration day, Trump signed an executive order directing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to terminate all parole programs "that are contrary to the policies of the United States," specifically naming one titled Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, also known as CHNV, which allows people from those countries to live and work in the United States. Other programs targeted include Uniting for Ukraine, allowing Ukrainians displaced by the Russian war to stay in the United States, and Operation Allies Welcome, which is for Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Then on Feb. 14, under the executive order, DHS suspended the processing of applications for extended legal status of those previously approved under the terminated programs over potential concerns of vetting their original applications by the Biden administration. The directives threatened the legal stay of hundreds of thousands of people, and a nationwide coalition of beneficiaries, sponsors and organizational plaintiff Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a lawsuit late February challenging the Trump administration actions. In her ruling Wednesday, Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, said that while the executive order was not in question, directions given under it to stop the processing of re-parole applications are likely to fail in court. Talwani said the executive order does not provide for the indefinite suspension of applications for re-parole applications. "The 'pause' has now been in place for more than three months; the pause is, in effect, an indefinite suspension," she said. The lawsuit involved several beneficiaries of the terminated programs, which Karen Tumlin, founder and director of the Justice Action Center, described as essential workers, life partners and family members to others in the United States. "They deserve to be treated like anyone else when it comes to pursuing forms of status," Tumlin said. "We're grateful that the judge restored fairness and accountability for these communities."


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Poland's World-Beating Rally Is Facing an Election Reality Check
Revved-up Polish markets will be put to the test this weekend as voters head to the polls in the biggest challenge facing Premier Donald Tusk. Polish assets have been on a blistering surge since Tusk swept to power in late 2023 with a promise to repair relations with the European Union and undo populist policy. Government bonds have returned 27% in the period, the zloty is the best-performing emerging currency after the ruble and Warsaw stocks are up 42% in dollar terms this year alone.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk QUITS Donald Trump government amid 'big, beautiful bill' row
Billionaire businessman Elon Musk has quit Donald Trump's government - declaring that his time in the role has 'come to an end'. The owner of Tesla and X (formerly Twitter) served as a top advisor to President Trump, spearheading efforts to cut bureaucracy. Mr Musk has faced a backlash in recent months, with protests taking place at Tesla showrooms and sales of his company's cars plummeting. READ MORE: UK tourists face 'chaos' at Canary Islands airports during half-term getaway READ MORE: Russia issues WWIII threat to Donald Trump as tensions with Vladimir Putin explode But the final straw appears to be a row over what Mr Trump calls his 'big, beautiful bill' - which is designed to cut taxes and increase immigration enforcement. Mr Musk - who previously criticised the decision to impose certain high tariffs on other countries - described the new legislation as a 'massive spending bill' which 'undermines the work' of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which the entrepreneur had been leading. In a statement posted on his social media website X, Mr Musk wrote: "As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. 'The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.' A White House official, who requested anonymity to talk about the change, confirmed that Mr Musk was leaving. Speaking to CBS, Mr Musk described said the new bill would increase the federal deficit, adding: 'I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both.' His CBS interview came out on Tuesday night. Mr Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday, defended his agenda by talking about the delicate politics involved with negotiating the legislation. 'I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it,' he said. Mr Trump also suggested that more changes could be made. 'We're going to see what happens,' he said. 'It's got a way to go.' Republicans recently pushed the measure through the House and are debating it in the Senate. Mr Musk's concerns are shared by some Republican lawmakers. 'I sympathise with Elon being discouraged,' said Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson. Speaking at a Milwaukee Press Club event on Wednesday, Mr Johnson added that he was 'pretty confident' there was enough opposition 'to slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious' about reducing spending. He said there was no amount of pressure Mr Trump could put on him to change his position. Speaker Mike Johnson has asked senators to make as few changes to the legislation as possible, saying that House Republicans reached a 'very delicate balance' that could be upended with major changes. The narrowly divided House will have to vote again on final passage once the Senate alters the bill. On Wednesday, Mr Johnson thanked Mr Musk for his work and promised to pursue more spending cuts in the future, saying 'the House is eager and ready to act on Doge's findings'. The White House is sending some proposed rescissions, a mechanism used to cancel previously authorised spending, to Capitol Hill to solidify some of Doge's cuts. Mr Musk's criticism comes as he steps back from his government work, rededicating himself to companies like the electric automaker Tesla and rocket manufacturer SpaceX. He has also said he will reduce his political spending, because 'I think I've done enough'. At times, he has seemed chastened by his experience working in government. Although he hoped that Doge would generate one trillion dollars in spending cuts, he has fallen far short of that target. 'The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realised,' he told The Washington Post. 'I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in DC, to say the least.' Mr Musk had previously been energised by the opportunity to reshape Washington. He wore campaign hats in the White House, held his own campaign rallies, and talked about excessive spending as an existential crisis. He often tended to be effusive in his praise of Mr Trump. 'The more I've gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,' Mr Musk said in February. 'Frankly, I love him.' Join the Manchester Evening News WhatsApp group HERE Mr Trump repaid the favour, describing Mr Musk as 'a truly great American'. When Tesla faced declining sales, he turned the White House driveway into a makeshift showroom to illustrate his support. It is unclear what, if any, impact that Mr Musk's comments about the bill would have on the legislative debate. During the transition period, he helped whip up opposition to a spending measure as the country stood on the brink of a federal government shutdown. His latest criticism could embolden Republicans who want bigger spending cuts. Republican Utah senator Mike Lee reposted a Fox News story about Mr Musk's interview while also adding his own take on the measure, saying there was 'still time to fix it'. 'The Senate version will be more aggressive,' Mr Lee said. 'It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won't pass.' Only two Republicans - representatives Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky - voted against the bill when the House took up the measure last week. Mr Davidson took note of Mr Musk's comments on social media. 'Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,' he wrote. 'Don't hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.'