Countries Ditch NATO Summit After Trump Decision to Bomb Iran
Key allies are shunning the U.S. after it bombed Iranian nuclear sites with Israel.
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Monday both announced their intentions to skip the upcoming NATO summit at the Hague. South Korean sources confirmed that Jae-myung's decision was in part due to Trump's attack on Iran, while the Japanese prime minister has cited 'various circumstances.'
'Despite the pile of issues to deal with on the home front, the administration had seriously considered attending this year's NATO summit,' South Korea's presidential office told reporters on Sunday. 'However, considering various pending national issues and uncertainty in the Middle East, the president has decided not to attend the summit.'
Japan's leader has attended every NATO summit since 2022, making this a significant snub.
This move shows that the U.S. is growing increasingly isolated due to its support of Israel and its unprovoked aggression towards Iran. This escalation shows our allies that the U.S. is no longer as committed to the traditional principles and customs of the Western world.
Japan and South Korea aren't the only ones. Trump's demands for increased NATO defense spending and his sweeping retaliatory tariffs have caused other traditional European allies like Britain, France, and Canada to draw closer together and work without the United States. It's clear that U.S. diplomatic power is eroding on a worldwide scale with each passing day, as our leadership is viewed as unserious and unreliable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
7 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump lawyer and DOJ enforcer faces confirmation hearing for federal judgeship
President Donald Trump has nominated several of his personal attorneys to top legal posts in his administration, but his nomination of Emil Bove to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals marks the first time he has selected one of his lawyers to serve on the federal bench. For the past six months, Bove has served as a high-ranking official in the Justice Department. In that short time, he has proven himself to be a reliable ally for the president and also been embroiled in a series of major controversies – including dropping federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams; investigating officials who worked on cases related to January 6, 2021; and pursuing Trump's deportation goals in ways that prompted a whistleblower to allege Bove intended to ignore court orders and mislead federal judges. A Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing Wednesday will be the first time Democratic lawmakers will have the chance to grill the reclusive Bove on his time at the Justice Department and his work for Trump. If confirmed, Bove would be one of roughly a dozen judges with the power to review federal cases being appealed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands. Despite his involvement in high-profile cases and controversies, Bove has mostly avoided the limelight. 'He has been right there but kind of in the shadows, he doesn't go on TV, he doesn't talk to the press,' a senior Justice Department official told CNN. 'He is a brilliant lawyer, he is just an amazing writer, critical thinker … he clerked for two rock star judges, he worked at Sullivan and Cromwell. He is a legit genius lawyer, but nobody knows who he is.' Bove graduated from Georgetown Law School in 2008 and then went on to spend a decade working as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, where he focused on international terrorism and narcotics cases. During that time Bove successfully brought narco-terrorism charges against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in 2020. He also prosecuted Ahmad Khan Rahimi, the man responsible for a 2016 pressure cooker bombing in New York that left 30 people injured. Rahimi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. A former colleague who worked with Bove describes him as an 'a**-kicker … he is whip smart, has a high level of curiosity, is naturally intelligent, and extremely effective.' 'I wouldn't want to be one of his adversaries,' they said. Bove joined Trump's legal team in 2023 and worked on three of Trump's criminal cases over the span of roughly 18 months. He sat second chair, alongside now-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, to represent Trump in his New York hush money trial. Trump was ultimately found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in that case, which he is still appealing. He also worked on Trump's federal criminal cases related to alleged mishandling of classified documents and allegations of interfering with the 2020 election. Bove's resume has many of the hallmarks of a federal judge, but he has never served on the bench, and it is unclear how he would rule on major issues. 'He is completely empathic and fair – he is very strategic and thoughtful about applying law to the facts. He is a brilliant writer and critical legal thinker. He will make opinions that come out of the third circuit tighter and better,' the senior Justice Department official said. But some Senate Democrats are not convinced and want to focus Wednesday's hearing on Bove's controversial actions while at the Trump Justice Department. Just hours after Trump took office, Bove was tapped to assume the powerful position of interim deputy attorney general – the No. 2 job at the Justice Department, which had him running the sprawling agency while Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche were awaiting confirmation. His brief tenure has earned him many detractors as he tried to reshape the department to align with Trump's vision and clashed with career officials. One of Bove's first actions at the department was to issue a memo threatening to prosecute state and local officials who resist the administration's federal immigration crackdown. 'The administration had a directive to depoliticize the department. He was met with instant resistance from entrenched bureaucrats who are not accustomed to change,' his former colleague told CNN. 'He was there to execute a mission and institute policy – he was not there to make friends.' He then ordered the firing of eight senior officials and sent a memo demanding information about all current and former employees who had any involvement in January 6 investigations. The request became a point of contention between the FBI and DOJ, sparking two lawsuits that aimed to stop the collection or release of any such information, saying that its release would put FBI employees in danger. His most high-profile controversy has been dropping federal corruption charges against Adams. Adams was charged in September 2024 with five federal charges of bribery, wire fraud and conspiracy and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. In a memo to prosecutors in February, Bove cited two reasons as to why the case should be dropped: It had been tainted by publicity, and it was preventing Adams from doing his job, which included helping Trump with his immigration crackdown. Federal prosecutors at first rebuffed his demand to drop the case, and some quit in protest, including the interim US Attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, and the acting chief of the public integrity section of the department. Bove ended up personally arguing for the case to be dismissed. Judge Dale Ho ultimately agreed to do so in April 2025. Bove's handling of the Adams case has been the focus of many of the objections to his judicial nomination. Even the conservative The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote Tuesday, '… his recent handling of the case against New York May Eric Adams doesn't inspire confidence.' Justice Connection, a coalition of former Justice Department officials, released a video on Monday with statements from formal federal prosecutors warning the public of Bove's alleged unlawful practices. Ryan Crosswell, a federal prosecutor for more than a decade, was one of the lawyers who resigned over the case. 'We don't bring charges or dismiss them based on political loyalties. Emil Bove asked us to base a prosecutorial decision not on the facts, not on the law, but on a political calculation,' Crosswell says in the video. 'He took on a hard job the first five weeks of the administration doing what the president was elected to do,' said the senior Justice Department official. 'Whether someone is qualified to be a judge is not determined by what they did over five-to-six-week period of administration.' Bove has also drawn scrutiny for his approach to executing the president's aggressive goals on immigration. On Tuesday, Erez Reuveni, the former acting deputy director for the Office of Immigration Litigation, sent a whistleblower letter to members of Congress and independent investigators in the executive branch regarding Bove's alleged conduct. Reuveni was an immigration attorney who lost his job after working on the case of mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He complained internally about the department's lack of respect towards the court which ultimately led to him being removed. Reuveni also claims that Bove told prosecutors in a meeting in March that the Justice Department could ignore court orders, and that the department could tell the courts, 'f**k you.' In the wake of these controversies, the Justice Department points to accomplishments that have occurred under Bove's leadership, including securing the transfer of 29 cartel leaders to face charges in the US. Bove was also a part of the Justice Department team that worked with the DEA to execute the largest fentanyl seizure in history. But his former colleague says Bove's varied experience is what makes him perfect for the federal bench. 'He has seen it from both sides – he has worked in a federal prosecutors' office, he has worked at DOJ, and he worked in the private sector and defended people targeted by the federal government,' they said. 'He is attuned to overreach. He is exactly who you would want on federal bench.'
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump again questions NATO's collective defense guarantee ahead of summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again raised questions about America's commitment to defend its allies should they come under attack as he prepared to join a NATO summit in the Netherlands. Just as he did during his first term in office, Trump suggested that his backing would depend on whether U.S. allies are spending enough on defense. He's demanded that European allies and Canada dedicate 5% of GDP to their security. On the eve of the meeting in The Hague, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that his commitment to Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty – the organization's collective security guarantee – 'depends on your definition.' 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' Trump said. 'But I'm committed to being their friends.' He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he is at the summit. As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that he as president would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantee. In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed. What Article 5 says Article 5 is the foundation stone on which the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is built. It states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. It also states that if such an armed attack occurs, each member would take, individually and in concert with others, 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' That security guarantee is the reason previously neutral Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and why Ukraine itself and other countries in Europe also want in. When it has been invoked Article 5 was only invoked once, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, paving the way for NATO's biggest ever operation in Afghanistan. But NATO allies have also taken collective defense measures, including joining the U.S. to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as help keep the peace in the Balkans. The Three Musketeers-like pledge of all for one, one for all, is at the heart of NATO's deterrent effect. To question it too loudly might invite an adversary to test it. European officials have said that Russia is planning to do just that. The impact of Article 5 on Ukraine NATO's credibility hinges on Article 5 and its commitment to offer membership to any European country that can contribute to security in Europe and North America. But Ukraine, currently in the middle of war with Russia, might oblige all 32 member countries to spring to its defense militarily, potentially igniting a wider war with a nuclear-armed country. Trump is vetoing its membership for the foreseeable future. Article 5 becomes problematic when the territory of a member is unclear. For instance, Russian forces entered Georgia in August 2008, a few months after NATO leaders first promised the country it would join, along with Ukraine.
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump again questions NATO's collective defense guarantee ahead of summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again raised questions about America's commitment to defend its allies should they come under attack as he prepared to join a NATO summit in the Netherlands. Just as he did during his first term in office, Trump suggested that his backing would depend on whether U.S. allies are spending enough on defense. He's demanded that European allies and Canada dedicate 5% of GDP to their security. On the eve of the meeting in The Hague, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that his commitment to Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty – the organization's collective security guarantee – 'depends on your definition.' 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' Trump said. 'But I'm committed to being their friends.' He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he is at the summit. As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that he as president would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantee. In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed. What Article 5 says Article 5 is the foundation stone on which the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is built. It states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. It also states that if such an armed attack occurs, each member would take, individually and in concert with others, 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' That security guarantee is the reason previously neutral Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and why Ukraine itself and other countries in Europe also want in. When it has been invoked Article 5 was only invoked once, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, paving the way for NATO's biggest ever operation in Afghanistan. But NATO allies have also taken collective defense measures, including joining the U.S. to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as help keep the peace in the Balkans. The Three Musketeers-like pledge of all for one, one for all, is at the heart of NATO's deterrent effect. To question it too loudly might invite an adversary to test it. European officials have said that Russia is planning to do just that. The impact of Article 5 on Ukraine NATO's credibility hinges on Article 5 and its commitment to offer membership to any European country that can contribute to security in Europe and North America. But Ukraine, currently in the middle of war with Russia, might oblige all 32 member countries to spring to its defense militarily, potentially igniting a wider war with a nuclear-armed country. Trump is vetoing its membership for the foreseeable future. Article 5 becomes problematic when the territory of a member is unclear. For instance, Russian forces entered Georgia in August 2008, a few months after NATO leaders first promised the country it would join, along with Ukraine. Georgia's NATO application is still pending but seems unlikely for many years. Russia continues to occupy large swaths of Ukraine and other parts are contested, meaning that its borders cannot be easily defined.
