Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / NATO / What Trump gets right about Nato
NATO, Europe and Eurasia, Grand strategy

February 12, 2024

What Trump gets right about Nato

By Daniel DePetris

With the exception of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, it’s safe to assume that Europe is petrified about the prospects of a second Donald Trump presidency. As one European foreign policy analyst told the New York Times last summer: ‘It’s slightly terrifying, it’s fair to say.’

The terror meter went up a few notches this weekend, when Trump addressed supporters at a campaign rally and told a story (who knows if the story was actually true) about the time he told a European bigwig that the United States would protect a European country from Russian invasion if it failed to meet Nato’s defence spending benchmark. ‘In fact,’ Trump said, ‘I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.’

The reaction was swift, immediate, and angry. The Biden administration blasted Trump’s comments as ‘appalling and unhinged’. The German Foreign Ministry, in a not-so-subtle brushback, reminded everybody with an X account that Nato keeps 950 million people safe from a possible Russian invasion. European Council President Charles Michel tweeted out something more forceful: ‘Reckless statements on #NATO’s security and Act 5 solidarity serve only Putin’s interest.’

You would get a lot of support for that statement in Washington, DC, a town that hyperventilates after every Trump utterance. Indeed, lawmakers are so concerned about what Trump would do with Nato if he returned to the White House that they included a provision in the annual defence policy bill barring any future president from pulling the US out of the transatlantic alliance. The US election is still nine months away but the foreign policy establishment on both sides of the Atlantic are doing what they can to prepare.

Read at The Spectator

Author

Photo of Daniel DePetris

Daniel
DePetris

Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Europe

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Is Trump’s unified Republican front fracturing over Russia?

By Daniel DePetris

May 28, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

Putin would be foolish to attack Nato

By Jennifer Kavanagh

May 27, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Trump’s flattery and bullying of Putin have been equally ineffective – and it’s obvious why

By Rajan Menon

May 27, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Europe and US slide further apart on Ukraine

By Daniel DePetris

May 23, 2025

In the mediaIran, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

New US-Iran Nuclear Talks as Tensions Rise

Featuring Daniel DePetris

May 22, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine Faces A Growing Risk of Outright Military Collapse If No Deal Struck

By Daniel Davis

May 21, 2025

Events on NATO

See All Events
virtualNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

Past Virtual Event: A ‘bridge’ to NATO or false hope for Ukraine?

July 12, 2024
virtualNATO, Alliances, Deterrence, Europe and Eurasia, Nuclear weapons

Past Virtual Event: New York for Paris? NATO and extended deterrence in a new nuclear age

July 2, 2024
virtualNATO, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Past Virtual Event: Reexamining the U.S. role in European security

May 3, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved