Trump Could Undermine NATO Through Five Scenarios - Politico

On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines by stating that he is 'absolutely' contemplating a withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This declaration underscores his long-standing skepticism towards the military alliance, which was established in 1949. Although Trump has not taken any concrete steps towards exiting NATO—largely due to U.S. legislation that prohibits the president from acting without Congressional approval—his rhetoric and the use of the term 'they' instead of 'we' when discussing NATO suggest a diminishing perception of the U.S. as an integral part of the alliance it helped create.

In light of Trump's comments, journalists from Politico reached out to experts, legal analysts, and NATO officials to explore potential scenarios regarding Trump's actions and their feasibility. The first scenario involves an escalation of hostile rhetoric. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether he would commit American troops to defend allies under Article 5 of the collective defense agreement. Recently, he referred to NATO as a 'paper tiger' and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'knows this too.'

European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have expressed concerns about this risk, emphasizing that alliances like NATO are valuable due to the trust that underpins them. 'If you create doubts about your commitments every day, you strip NATO of its essence,' Macron stated. Security expert Gerlinde Nikhus also pointed out that when the U.S. president questions the alliance, it 'seriously undermines trust in NATO's defensive and deterrent posture.'

The second scenario considers the possibility of complicating life for NATO allies. According to Politico, the U.S. has already utilized the fact that all political documents in NATO working committees must be approved unanimously to block reports on less obvious issues such as climate change and human security. One NATO diplomat noted that work on these topics has effectively 'ground to a halt.' While the U.S. still maintains a strong team and participates in committee work, Washington could cause more damage if it chose to halt operations in more critical committees, particularly those dealing with Ukraine and Russia.

Moreover, Trump could refuse to pay contributions to NATO's common budget, which currently amounts to around 800,000 euros or 15 percent of the total. Nikhus remarked that while this would be 'destructive,' 'it would not be the end of the world' if other allies filled the gap. Some members of Trump's administration are considering implementing a 'pay-to-play' model within NATO, which would revoke the voting rights of allies that do not meet defense spending targets in joint missions and the activation of Article 5. Although 'there is no mechanism' to enforce this strategy, Trump could still achieve it through political pressure.

A NATO representative stated that the alliance 'does not comment on the details of discussions among allies,' emphasizing that committee discussions are an integral part of NATO's daily operations, which all allies regularly participate in.

The third scenario involves the potential withdrawal of American troops from Europe. Currently, between 67,500 and 85,000 U.S. service members are stationed on the continent. Trump has limited maneuverability, as U.S. law requires him to maintain at least 76,000 troops in Europe unless the withdrawal lasts less than 45 days or he obtains Congressional approval. If Trump were to withdraw the legal maximum of approximately 9,000 troops, it would be 'moderately' harmful to the alliance but not catastrophic, according to defense expert Ed Arnold.

European allies could replace these troops or provide equivalent resources such as long-range missiles. However, Arnold believes this is unlikely, as Trump is interested in maintaining troops and resources in Europe to be able to rapidly deploy forces in conflicts such as the war in Iran. The likelihood of this scenario is rated at two out of five.

In a less extreme case, the U.S. could withdraw from NATO’s four-year military planning cycle, which determines what equipment and how many troops each member should deploy to the alliance in case of invasion scenarios. Although this would technically not affect U.S. military commitments, it would effectively freeze them, forcing Europeans to try to fill gaps in areas such as air defense, intelligence, and aerial refueling.

The U.S. could also boycott NATO meetings or withdraw its delegation, which would be 'very harmful' as it would effectively paralyze the alliance’s operations, given that it relies on unanimous decisions. Trump might recall history, as in 1966, French President Charles de Gaulle left NATO's unified command, and Greece briefly did so in 1974. In practice, this could dismantle the alliance, as Washington's relatively central role in NATO likely means the withdrawal of all American troops assigned to NATO.