Summary
President Donald Trump said he is considering removing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, citing European allies’ unwillingness to send ships to unblock the Strait of Hormuz. His remarks followed a public moment in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to firmly restate U.S. adherence to NATO’s collective defence principle. European ministers and officials reacted with a combination of reminders about the alliance’s purpose, appeals for calm and public reiterations of national positions, while disputes over airspace and aircraft permissions underscored rising friction.
Context and comments
Speaking to Britain’s Daily Telegraph, President Trump said: "I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin knows that too, by the way." He added that he had moved "beyond reconsideration" of U.S. membership, framing the potential withdrawal as a response to what he described as a lack of European military support for operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
Those comments came a matter of hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to unequivocally reaffirm the United States’ commitment to NATO’s collective defence, the mutual-security clause at the heart of the alliance. Hegseth told reporters: "As far as NATO is concerned, that’s a decision that will be left to the president. But I’ll just say a lot has been laid bare." He continued: "You don’t have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them."
Allied reactions
France was among the first European voices to respond, though officials did not directly address the notion of U.S. withdrawal. French junior army minister Alice Rufo said: "Let me recall what NATO is. It is a military alliance concerned with the security of territories in the Euro-Atlantic area. It is not intended to carry out an operation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is not in accordance with international law." Her comment framed the alliance as geographically focused on the Euro-Atlantic region and suggested that actions in the Hormuz strait fall outside NATO’s intended remit.
In Poland, Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz urged caution. "I hope that amid the emotions surrounding the President of the United States today, a moment of calm will come," he said. "And why? Because there is no NATO without the United States, and it is in our interest that this calm comes. But there is also no American power without NATO." His remarks highlighted the mutual dependence member states perceive between U.S. leadership and the transatlantic alliance.
Germany emphasized continuity of support for NATO. A German government spokesperson, when asked to comment on the U.S. president’s remarks, said Germany remained committed to the alliance and noted that similar declarations have occurred before: "This isn’t the first time he’s done this, and since it’s a recurring phenomenon, you can probably judge the consequences for yourself," the spokesperson said at a regular press briefing.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would act in Britain’s national interest "whatever the 'noise'." He argued that instability stemming from the Iran war makes it important for Britain to shift toward tighter economic and defence cooperation with other European countries.
How the Iran war shapes the dispute
The conflict involving Iran has intensified strains between the United States and Europe that have been growing since the start of President Trump’s second term and have touched on matters ranging from trade to territorial disputes such as his demands concerning Greenland. European officials are also watching closely Mr. Trump’s attempts to mediate the war between Russia and Ukraine; some senior European figures are concerned he may be perceived as favouring a Moscow-oriented settlement.
Against this backdrop, a number of practical frictions have surfaced. French authorities refused permission for Israel to use French airspace to resupply a flight carrying American weapons that were being used in operations related to the Iran conflict, and Italian authorities denied permission for U.S. military aircraft to land at the Sigonella air base in Sicily before proceeding to the Middle East, officials said. Both France and Italy described those decisions as standard policy and said there had been no change in approach. Spain, by contrast, publicly announced it had fully closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in attacks on Iran.
Separately, President Trump has repeatedly criticised Britain for not joining the United States in an earlier launch of military operations, an ongoing source of contention with a NATO ally.
Implications
The public sparring between Washington and its European partners over operational support, airspace permissions and the scope of NATO’s responsibilities has prompted calls for calm from some allied capitals while raising questions about the alliance’s cohesion. European ministers and spokespeople have sought to both reassure domestic audiences about their national policies and underline that NATO remains centered on Euro-Atlantic security. At the same time, the U.S. administration’s statements have left space for uncertainty about long-standing commitments and the manner in which collective defence is interpreted and applied.
Key Points
- President Trump said he is considering withdrawing the United States from NATO, citing allied refusal to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz.
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to reaffirm NATO’s collective defence as an automatic U.S. commitment, saying such decisions would be left to the president and noting alliances depend on mutual willingness to act.
- European responses ranged from reminders about NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus to calls for calm, while disagreements over airspace and landing permissions for U.S.-linked flights have added practical tensions.
Risks and uncertainties
- Potential erosion of NATO cohesion if U.S. commitment to collective defence remains unclear - this affects defence and security sectors in allied countries.
- Disputes over military overflight and airspace permissions could complicate logistics and operational planning in ongoing conflicts - this impacts defence logistics and military aviation operations.
- Political instability arising from public disagreements among allies may influence broader diplomatic coordination and transatlantic economic ties - this has implications for trade-sensitive sectors and defence procurement.
Note: Where officials described decisions on airspace or base permissions, those governments characterized them as standard policy.