For the second time in the still-quite-young 2026 calendar yr, President Donald Trump is threatening to explode the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Americans decidedly like, over a international coverage journey they decidedly don’t.
First it was his designs on taking Greenland. Now it’s the Iran battle.
Trump has repeatedly directed his ire towards NATO members over their lack of help to the US towards Iran. After calling NATO a “paper tiger” and saying he was considering withdrawing from the alliance final week, he hosted on Wednesday NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who informed NCS Trump was “clearly disappointed” with a lot of its allies.
The president then bemoaned the alliance on social media, referring to when allies resisted his efforts to take management of Greenland, a self-governing territory of fellow NATO ally Denmark.
“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”
It stays unlikely that Trump may legally pull the United States out of the alliance; that is certainly one of the few methods through which Congress Trump-proofed the US authorities between his first and second phrases. Thanks partially to now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was a US senator, Congress in 2023 handed a provision requiring it to sign off on a withdrawal.
And it’s potential Trump’s discuss is bluster meant to pressure NATO to assist the US indirectly towards Iran (with whom the US is in a fragile truce). Rutte signaled Thursday there may very well be some movement on that front on the subject of opening the Strait of Hormuz.
But we additionally noticed throughout the Greenland saga how even steps in need of withdrawal can harm the alliance. Allies like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney started speaking when it comes to transferring ahead without basing the alliance around the United States anymore.
One factor is clear from public opinion polling: To the extent the Iran battle additional diminishes the NATO alliance, it might appear to be but one more reason for Americans to oppose the battle much more strongly than they already do.
Polling in latest months has proven massive majorities of Americans like NATO and look at it as vital — whilst the as soon as nonpartisan situation has grow to be considerably extra polarized.
An AP-NORC poll in February, after Trump stated he’d secured a imprecise “framework of a future deal” on Greenland and earlier than the Iran battle started, confirmed 70% of Americans stated being a NATO member was “very” (40%) or “somewhat” good (30%) for the United States.
That was the highest studying since not less than 2022, when NATO united to help Ukraine’s protection towards Russia’s invasion.
Similarly, Gallup polling the identical month confirmed greater than three-quarters of Americans supported growing (28%) or sustaining (49%) the present US dedication to NATO. That mixed complete was the highest in Gallup polling relationship again to 1998 (albeit with no surveys between 1998 and 2022).
Gallup even confirmed about 6 in 10 Republicans supported growing or sustaining the present dedication — up from lower than half in 2022. And solely 13% of Republicans needed to withdraw fully from the alliance, as Trump has floated.
The polling does appear to have shifted a bit since the Iran battle began.
The Pew Research Center’s poll in late March, a couple of month after the battle began, confirmed the share of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who stated NATO advantages the United States a “great deal” or a “fair amount” dropped from 49% a yr in the past to 38% at present.
But the ballot nonetheless confirmed practically 6 in 10 Americans considered NATO favorably and stated it was useful to the United States.
Taken collectively, the knowledge suggests latest occasions have impacted Americans’ views of NATO.
After the Greenland flap, public help for the alliance appeared to extend. Which would make sense given Americans overwhelmingly opposed Trump’s efforts to take over the island. (A Reuters-Ipsos poll in January confirmed Americans stated 2-to-1 that they had been involved the episode would harm NATO and different US alliances.)
And now the Iran battle, which is extra in style on the proper than taking Greenland was, seems to have satisfied some Republicans that Trump is proper about NATO’s lack of utility.
It does bear emphasizing that NATO was created as a defensive alliance — to not help in no matter battle of selection certainly one of its member states launches. So one may make a convincing case that NATO did its job by standing up for Greenland and that there’s no direct comparability between that and the Iran battle. Also, the solely time NATO’s Article 5 collective protection provision was invoked was to help the United States after the September 11, 2001, assaults.
Exactly what occurs subsequent is an enormous open query.
Trump can’t withdraw from NATO with out getting sign-off from Congress, which might be a tall process.
But that doesn’t imply Trump can’t wound the alliance.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week on a few ideas circulating inside the Trump administration, together with pulling US troops out of nations deemed particularly unhelpful with Iran, or probably even closing a base in certainly one of them. (Trump in 2020 pulled 12,000 troops from Germany, although that transfer was later reversed by Joe Biden.)
The president has additionally broken alliances with NATO and different allies by way of his tariffs and thru his common tendency to deal with them no higher — if not worse — than some adversaries.
Perhaps certainly one of the most undersold methods Trump has harm NATO is by legitimizing Russian President Vladimir Putin on the world stage. He’s pushed the United States — and by extension, the world — extra towards a state of affairs through which “might makes right” and large international locations can decide on smaller ones. Carney labeled this the decline of the “rules-based order.”
The penalties of the Iran battle will doubtless be lengthy lasting. And in few arenas may that be extra the case than the way forward for the NATO alliance.