The NATO alliance, which has endured significant challenges in recent years—from the conflict in Ukraine to repeated provocations by U.S. President Donald Trump—now faces a new crisis triggered by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. This conflict, thousands of miles from Europe, is straining the 76-year-old bloc to its limits and could leave it in its most vulnerable state since its inception, analysts and diplomats warn.
Trump, angered by European nations’ refusal to deploy their navies to secure the Strait of Hormuz following the air campaign that began on February 28, has publicly contemplated pulling the United States out of NATO. In a Wednesday interview, he questioned, “Wouldn’t you if you were me?” Although his speech later that evening criticized U.S. allies, he stopped short of outright condemning NATO, contrary to some expectations. However, his recent remarks have fueled unprecedented fears that the U.S. might not defend its European partners if attacked, regardless of whether Washington formally exits the alliance.
Experts suggest this situation is eroding the foundational mutual defense pact of NATO, which has long been the cornerstone of European security. Max Bergmann, a former State Department official and current head of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described the alliance’s current state as “the worst place NATO has been since it was founded,” emphasizing the severity of the crisis.
European nations, which have traditionally relied on NATO as a safeguard against an increasingly assertive Russia, are now grappling with this new reality. As recently as February, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte dismissed the idea of Europe defending itself without U.S. support as “a silly thought.” Today, many officials view European self-reliance as the default expectation. General Francois Lecointre, France’s former armed forces chief, remarked that while NATO remains essential, it is necessary to consider a future without American involvement, even questioning whether the alliance should retain its name, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly reiterated that President Trump has expressed his dissatisfaction with NATO and other allies, emphasizing that “the United States will remember.” NATO representatives have yet to comment on the unfolding situation.
Unlike previous challenges, including Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021 when he also threatened withdrawal, this crisis appears more entrenched. Earlier, many European officials believed Trump could be placated with diplomatic gestures, but confidence in this approach has waned, based on discussions with numerous U.S. and European officials.
Trump and his administration have voiced frustration over what they perceive as NATO’s reluctance to assist the U.S. during critical moments, such as the refusal to support operations in the Strait of Hormuz and restrictions on U.S. military access to certain airfields and airspace. U.S. officials argue that NATO should not be a “one-way street,” while European counterparts contend they have not received formal requests for specific support and criticize Washington’s inconsistent stance on the timing of such missions.
Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official, described the situation as “terrible” for the alliance, noting that European allies have worked hard to demonstrate their willingness to assume greater responsibility for their defense since Trump’s return to the White House.
Trump’s recent statements add to a series of tensions, including his January threats to claim Greenland from Denmark and U.S. actions perceived by Europeans as overly accommodating to Russia—NATO’s primary security concern. The U.S. administration has remained largely silent amid reports that Moscow provided targeting data to Iran for attacks on U.S. assets in the Middle East and has eased sanctions on Russian oil to mitigate soaring global energy prices during the war.
At a recent G7 foreign ministers meeting near Paris, a tense exchange occurred between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. Kallas questioned when U.S. patience with Russian President Vladimir Putin would end regarding Ukraine peace talks, prompting Rubio to express frustration, stating the U.S. was trying to end the war while supporting Ukraine and inviting the EU to mediate if desired.
Legally, Trump may face obstacles in withdrawing from NATO, as a 2023 law requires two-thirds Senate approval for such a move, a difficult threshold to meet. Nonetheless, analysts note that as commander-in-chief, Trump can decide whether the U.S. military will defend NATO members, and refusal to do so could undermine the alliance without formal withdrawal.
Some view the current turmoil as a temporary outburst. A French diplomat described Trump’s rhetoric as a passing temper tantrum. Historically, Trump has shifted his stance on NATO; in 2024, he suggested encouraging Putin to attack NATO members not meeting defense spending commitments, yet by the June 2025 NATO summit, he praised European leaders warmly. NATO Secretary-General Rutte, who maintains a strong rapport with Trump, plans a visit to Washington next week to attempt to alter the president’s perspective once more.
Despite doubts about U.S. commitment, analysts argue that European nations have compelling reasons to keep America engaged in NATO, given the unique military capabilities the U.S. provides, such as satellite intelligence. Even if the alliance endures, experts agree that the transatlantic partnership, central to the global order since World War II, is unlikely to return to its previous form.
Julianne Smith, the U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Joe Biden, observed that the alliance is at a turning point after 80 years of cooperation. While this does not signal the end of transatlantic relations, she noted that the partnership is poised to evolve into something markedly different in both appearance and substance.
