One of the central reasons behind Donald Trump’s electoral success lies in his “America First” rhetoric, which prioritizes domestic needs over international commitments. This stance contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s substantial support for Ukraine—billions of dollars that many Americans believe could have been better spent on U.S. citizens. The recent Hurricane Milton, which devastated parts of Florida and severely impacted Tampa Bay, underscored this sentiment, as Americans observed pressing domestic crises receive less focus than overseas aid packages.
Trump’s platform includes a controversial proposal: the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. Established in 1949 at the height of the Cold War, NATO was created to counter Soviet expansion and protect Western interests. Initially comprising the United States, Canada, and ten European countries, NATO’s primary purpose was collective security. Today, the alliance has expanded to 32 members, including recent additions like Finland and Sweden, who joined following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
While NATO was initially established as a military alliance to address immediate security threats, in the 1960s, the alliance’s strategy evolved with the adoption of the Harmel Doctrine, which called for a balance between military deterrence and diplomatic engagement. This shift broadened NATO’s approach and continues to influence its actions today. Despite this evolution, NATO has faced significant criticism. Critics like George Kennan and Henry Kissinger have raised concerns about the alliance’s eastward expansion, suggesting that it might provoke rather than stabilize Russia. Additionally, the inclusion of nations with dubious democratic credentials has been questioned. For example, some of NATO’s founding members, such as Portugal under Salazar’s authoritarian rule and Greece and Turkey, both of which experienced military coups, were allowed to remain in the alliance despite their lack of democratic stability.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised further questions about NATO’s purpose as the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist. Many Eastern European nations, formerly within the Soviet sphere, chose to join NATO, giving the alliance renewed relevance as they sought security from potential Russian influence. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has underscored NATO’s role as a security bulwark, particularly for neighboring non-NATO countries like Ukraine, which remains surrounded by NATO members.
Under NATO’s Article 5, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, meaning all 32 member countries must respond. This mutual defense commitment serves as a deterrent to potential aggression, especially from Russia, which some Western leaders believe aims to expand its autocratic influence. This rationale partly motivated Finland and Sweden—both bordering Russia—to seek NATO membership in 2022.
Efforts by Presidents Obama and Biden to have NATO members allocate 2% of their GDP toward defense are intended to relieve some of the burden on the U.S., NATO’s primary financier. However, even with increased contributions, the U.S. will spend nearly $968 billion on defense in 2024 amid a national debt crisis. This reality feeds into Trump’s skepticism about the alliance, reflecting the views of many Americans who see NATO as a costly commitment with questionable returns.
While the U.S. benefits strategically from NATO bases located near conflict-prone regions like the Middle East, public support for the alliance is diminishing. For many Americans, especially those supportive of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” ethos, the idea of funding foreign security arrangements feels misaligned with national priorities. Trump’s isolationist leanings resonate with voters who believe U.S. resources should prioritize domestic issues over global military alliances.
Following Trump’s win, NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, congratulated him and expressed a willingness to continue the partnership, emphasizing NATO’s importance in addressing global challenges such as Russian aggression, terrorism, and rising competition from China. He noted that NATO expects 23 of its 32 members to meet the 2% defense spending target this year, a significant increase from a decade ago.
Despite challenges, NATO remains a strategic asset for the U.S., providing a geopolitical advantage and maintaining American influence abroad. However, if the U.S. steps back, China and Russia could find opportunities to expand their influence, an outcome that few Americans—even those who advocate for “America First”—would find favorable. America’s global leadership has long depended on both hard power and strategic alliances, and NATO is a linchpin of that power.
Ultimately, while Trump’s prioritization of U.S. interests over NATO may satisfy his base, abandoning the alliance altogether would likely have profound consequences for global stability and American influence. NATO’s presence at the borders of both Europe and the Middle East allows the U.S. to project strength far from its shores, an advantage that remains crucial as new superpowers assert themselves on the world stage.
[Photo by Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Camilla is a journalist specializing in international affairs, geopolitics and culture. She holds degrees from the Universities of Siena, Bologna, and Stirling. She now serves as the NGO Hecho por Nosotros’ ambassador at the UN headquarters in Geneva, researching and writing publications on human rights and fair trade.
Read the full article here
