Donald Trump’s advisors are working on a radical reorientation for NATO’s future, in which the United States would shift the defense of Europe to its allies to focus more on China. The plan also includes reaching an agreement with Putin to end the war in Ukraine.
Donald Trump has threatened so many times, more or less veiled, that the US would leave NATO, that many analysts say it’s not a matter of if this will happen, but when, in case he is reelected as president in November, as stated in an analysis published by POLITICO.
It is unlikely that Trump will decide on a definitive withdrawal from NATO, say former national security officials and defense experts from the Trump administration who are likely to be part of the administration in a second term for the Republican candidate.
However, in exchange for the continued US participation in the Alliance, Trump could not only demand that European countries significantly increase their defense spending, but also move towards a "radical reorientation" of NATO, according to Dan Caldwell, a defense expert familiar with the thinking within the former president's national security advisory circle.
"We have no choice," Caldwell declared, citing the increasing US debt, declining military recruitment, and a defense industrial base that cannot keep pace with both Russia and China.
America will provide support only in times of crisis
Trump has not yet formed a new national security team nor openly embraced a new agenda for NATO. However, former officials and experts consulted by the mentioned publication are engaged in an ongoing debate about how much to push Europeans towards a security architecture more to Trump's liking.
According to these officials, the US would maintain its nuclear defense umbrella over Europe during a second Trump term, retaining its air power and bases in Germany, England, and Turkey, as well as naval forces. In return, most of NATO's infantry, logistics, and artillery on the continent would come under European command instead of American.
The change would involve a "significant and substantial reduction in America's security role – to withdraw, rather than be the primary provider of combat power in Europe, someone who offers support only in times of crisis," Caldwell said.
Another part of Trump's plan is a two-tier NATO system - member countries that have not yet met the target of spending 2% of GDP on defense would not enjoy the full extent of US defense and security guarantee, said a national security expert close to Trump.
It could be argued that this vision contradicts Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which obliges each member to take the actions it deems necessary to assist any Alliance member that is attacked. However, Trump's foreign policy team members have noted that the wording in Article 5 is "flexible" and do not believe it means that every member must respond with military force, the publication writes.
The US is not a global ATM
The United States is the largest contributor to NATO operations, spending approximately $860 billion on defense last year, which represented 68% of the total expenditures of NATO countries in 2023. And over 10 times more than Germany's contribution, the second NATO country in military spending.
"I am in favor of supporting the North Atlantic Alliance, but I believe the only way to do that – and I tell Europeans this all the time – is for them to take on much more of the burden," said Elbridge Colby, who led the development of Trump's National Defense Strategy and is rumored to be in line for a senior national security post in a second Trump administration.
"We can't do ten times more than the Germans and we need to be tough with them. There have to be consequences. We want NATO to be active, but we want Europeans to lead. That was the original idea. That was Dwight Eisenhower's idea," Colby said in an interview.
Now, faced with a threatening China, the need for such changes is much more urgent, Colby said. "The United States does not have enough military forces to move everywhere... We can't spread ourselves thin in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese pose a more dangerous and significant threat," he explained.
Kiron Skinner, former policy planning chief for Trump under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a key player in Project 2025, a comprehensive agenda that includes priorities for Trump's second term, emphasizes the need for increased European spending: "We need to correctly size America's role in the world in the 21st century, and that's what it's about. The US is not a global ATM. NATO needs to make a significant contribution in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions, but we need to have more strategic thinking from both sides."
Trump's view on peace in Ukraine
A swift resolution to the two-and-a-half-year conflict in Ukraine also plays a key role in Trump's NATO plans.
Many in Trump's camp openly prefer Ukraine to remain outside of NATO. "NATO has already expanded far beyond what we need for an anti-hegemonic coalition against Russia," Colby said.
Trump is now considering an agreement in which NATO commits not to expand eastward – especially into Ukraine and Georgia – and is studying how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can retain, according to two other national security experts.
The Washington Post wrote in April that Trump's plan involves pressuring Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia.
One of the national security experts familiar with Trump's strategy said on condition of anonymity that he would be open to a formula that excludes NATO expansion and does not return Ukraine to its 1991 borders. "That would be on the table. But it doesn't mean giving up on any other possibility, including providing large amounts of weapons to Ukraine," the source noted.
Asked in a podcast on June 21 if he is willing to eliminate NATO expansion into Ukraine, Trump replied that the promise of NATO membership for Ukraine was a mistake and that's why the war started.
Trump has not publicly detailed his plans for Ukraine, but during the election campaign, he repeatedly promised that one of his first tasks as president would be to end the war – "before I even get to the Oval Office, shortly after winning the presidency," he said at a rally on June 22 in Philadelphia.
How Trump contributes to strengthening NATO
The biggest issue with Trump's emerging approach to NATO could be that European nations are not clearly prepared to soon assume a dramatically expanded military role, despite their plans to increase defense spending, experts say.
However, Europeans may not have a choice this time - Trump would hold more leverage to demand what he wants from Europe, as long as the US still provides the bulk of military aid to Ukraine and Europe is economically weaker than ever and more dependent on US energy supplies.
However, even some former Trump officials admit that Washington probably does not want to go too far in handing over leadership to Europeans. Trump's isolationist instincts could backfire and draw the US into a wider war. Colby mentions Macron's idea of sending French troops to Ukraine and the provocative rhetoric of bellicose Eastern European leaders, such as Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvič, who said in Latin "Russia delenda est" ("Russia must be destroyed").
Ultimately, only Trump can say how far he will go in reforming NATO. But most of his former officials seem to believe that the alliance should be maintained – and already claim credit for keeping and strengthening it due to Trump's ultimatums to NATO members. They argue that while Obama only complained about Europe's stinginess, Trump actually did something about it.
Trump's latest national security advisor, Robert O'Brien, wrote in a recent essay published in Foreign Affairs that "his pressure on NATO governments to spend more on defense has made the alliance stronger."
Achieving the 2% spending target by all NATO members could make the Alliance more to Trump's liking. But, as his advisors have pointed out, if he enters the Oval Office again, it is very likely that this will not be enough, as his national security objectives could change. How much is not clear, but the future of NATO – and Europe – depends on Trump's response, as stated in the analysis.
T.D.