Hail Trump the Disruptor — but for good or for ill?

The Hill

26-06-2025

In medieval or ancient times, given his chaotic approach to foreign policy and national security, President Trump might have hoped to be known as 'Trump the Disruptor.' His governing style — especially during his second term — has centered on upending traditional diplomatic and military approaches to confronting threats.
This has him at odds with many in the Washington establishment. Analysts at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon typically concentrate on war-gaming out second-, third- and fourth-order effects of any given policy approach and determining all potential reactions and counteractions that might result during a conflict.
Capitol Hill, consequently, in light of perceived recent U.S. failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is aghast at this new approach. In the wake of the U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, they are reflexively demanding clearly defined end states and exit strategies.
But Trump's early handling of Ukraine was a sign of things to come. Instead of effecting a maximum pressure campaign against Russian President Vladimir Putin to put an end to his illegal military invasion, Trump unleashed a war of words on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky during their January meeting in the Oval Office. Team Trump abruptly curtailed military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv. The immediate result was bloody chaos across the frontlines in Ukraine.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine's lodgment in the Russian oblast of Kursk was lost as Ukrainian troops were forced into a tactical withdrawal. Putin exploited the rift between Trump and Zelensky to increase his attacks against cities, including a children's playground in Kryvyi Rih — the Ukrainian president's home town — that killed 19 people.
Yet, out of that chaos — notwithstanding the unacceptably high cost of Ukrainian blood and treasure — Trump prodded European Union and NATO leaders into action. The European Commission proposed an €800 billion plan to rearm Europe, which was later dubbed Readiness 2030, as a counterweight to the growing Russia threat.
It also led to NATO, on Sunday, adopting a far higher defense spending target for its members than the current benchmark of 2 percent of GDP. The 32-member defensive alliance agreed to a 250 percent increase in the spending target to 5 percent of gross national product. Madrid sought and received an exemption. According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Spain's spending will be evaluated in 2029.
Likewise, it has shaken Berlin from its Russian doldrums. Friedrich Merz, Germany's newly elected chancellor, was elected on a right-leaning political platform that included doing 'whatever it takes' for Berlin to rebuild the Bundeswehr into Europe's strongest army. One of his first acts was to pledge €5 billion in new aid to Ukraine.
More broadly, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Tuesday, Europe is 'integrating our defense industries as if Ukraine was in the EU.' Rutte also stated in a press conference that the European Union and Canada had already pledged €35 billion to Ukraine's defense in the first half of 2025 alone.
In short, as a result of Trump's chaotic approach to the war in Ukraine, Europe is awakening and increasing its economic and military burden share — as it should. These are all good end results.
But then, what is the long-term cost of Trump's innovations to U.S. national security? After all, by acting in his own best interest versus the NATO alliance's collective interest, Trump risks alienating Washington from Brussels.
Operation Midnight Hammer showed that the U.S. remains dependent on its European military bases to project force into the Middle East and beyond. The B-2 Spirit stealth bombers launched against Iran from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri were refueled en route by USAF air tankers operating from forward bases in the United Kingdom, Spain, German and Italy.
Disruption can be an effective tool to bring about transformative change, as evidenced by Brussels' much-needed awakening about its deficient defense spending in the face of growing Russian threats to Europe. Ditto Trump's first-term landmark Abraham Accords, which transformed Israeli relations with much of the Arab world.
Similarly, Trump's rapid use of force in Iran disrupted Khamenei's nuclear weapons program — by just how much is still being debated.
Yet disruption can also be risky, especially when it comes to military alliances. Once again, Trump attempted to disrupt the accepted meaning of Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Ahead of travel to The Hague for a NATO summit, Trump was asked whether he remained committed to the bedrock of the alliance.
His response? 'Depends on your definition. There [are] numerous definitions of Article Five. You know that, right?'
Undermining the NATO alliance is self-defeating, especially if Trump or a future president needs to rely on Europe for military force projection or our own self-defense, as on 9/11. It also weakens the key role Article Five plays in establishing U.S. strategic deterrence against Russia.
Changes in policy direction and outcomes will only take Trump so far. Clearly defined U.S. desired end states are still needed. Presently they are glaringly lacking in Ukraine and Iran.
Ukraine remains in an existential hot war. Putin still refuses to agree to Trump's proposed ceasefire with Kyiv. And Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has, at least for now, survived to fight another day and potentially yet achieve nuclear breakout.
Time affords our nation's enemies space to regroup and rebuild. Putin is doing just that with his wartime economy in Russia, including expanded military bases along Finland's border. The future threat to Eastern and Western Europe is very real. Putin is also continuing to fight his war of attrition against Ukraine.
Khamenei and his regime, meanwhile, if given a chance to survive, are not going to change course. Military action can destroy facilities, but it cannot destroy technical know-how. If left unchecked, Iran can rebuild its centrifuges, ballistic missiles and air defense network. For now, it seems, his heinous regime has survived to do just that.
End-goals do not need expiration dates to succeed. We witnessed that with post-World War II Germany and Japan. They just require clarity.
History will judge whether Trump will be seen as a positive disruptor or a reckless and harmful one. If he wants it to be the former, then the president needs to be clear about his end-goals for Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. Their combined ideological global war against the West is not going to go away, and disruption alone cannot win it.
Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer.