Why a re-elected President Trump endangers NATO

In April, the world's strongest military alliance will turn 75 years old. Until now, NATO has served the interests of all its members. A re-election of Donald Trump could endanger unity.

At 75 you should know who you are. And you could perhaps also be proud that you are still so alive. Neither “obsolete” nor “brain dead”. “NATO has become so old because it has always managed to be a life insurance policy for all members,” says Claudia Major, head of the security policy research group at the Science and Politics Foundation (SWP).

After the election of a new US president in November, the question that arises, especially for Europeans, is: Will this life insurance last? For retired German NATO general Heinrich Brauß, it is clear: “The greater threat to the existence of NATO is Trump, not Putin.”

NATO and its identity crises

Of course, NATO had its identity crises after 1990. After the Russian attack on Crimea in 2014 at the latest, it was time to “back to the roots”. After decades of international crisis management – see Kosovo or Afghanistan – the old principle from the Cold War came back into focus: collective defense. Russia is now the “most significant and direct threat” again. The New Force Model, which was adopted in Vilnius in 2023, sees the defense of the Euro-Atlantic region as the main task – including strengthening NATO's eastern flank and admitting Finland and Sweden into NATO.

So far, so agreed. The pending accession of Sweden, which is still blocked by Turkey and Hungary, may only be a small blemish. Just in time for the New Year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that he was confident that the country would be the 32nd alliance member at the anniversary summit in July. A sentence that he had formulated exactly the same way a year ago. Without a result.

Tarnished birthday party in Washington

So the birthday party in Washington won't be a fun one. It takes place in the shadow of the US presidential election campaign. And: Europeans don't know what their life insurance might look like from November. So far, the USA has tamed the centrifugal forces of the transatlantic alliance. Because they provide the lion's share of defense capacity. Because their strategic nuclear bombs also protect non-nuclear powers in Europe – including Germany. Contrary to the opinion of many commentators in the last two weeks, the American nuclear umbrella cannot be replaced by a European nuclear variant in the foreseeable future.

One can assume that the transition phase until the inauguration of a possible new/old US President Donald Trump will not be nearly as chaotic as in 2016/2017. So far, three options are being discussed among security experts that a Trump administration has in its drawer with regard to NATO:

• Obsolete NATO: Trump announced a possible US exit in his first election campaign. He wanted to explain this at his first NATO summit in 2017, as John Bolton writes in his “Notes from the former security advisor in the White House”. “We’re out,” said Trump, “we won’t fight if the others don’t pay.” The question remains whether an exit is so easy. But even the removal of Saceur, NATO's military commander in chief – traditionally an American – would weaken the alliance.
• NATO on demand: Trump repeatedly stated that the USA would only defend those states that met the 2 percent target or even more. This would be tantamount to blackmail. This would de facto undermine the assistance clause (Article 5), one of the central pillars of NATO.
• Dormant NATO: Behind this option is the idea of ​​a “sleeping” membership for the USA. Mentioned in the foreign policy part of the “Heritage 2025 Agenda” from the influential conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. It means: no expansion of NATO and massive reduction of the US presence in Europe. One of the spin doctors of this republican doctrine, Sumantra Maitra, wrote in an essay at the end of December: “Everything other than American nuclear and naval power will be the security burden of Europe.”

Within the Republican Party – and especially among the base – the second and third options are widely supported. A fatal signal, says SWP security expert Claudia Major: “The USA would be in NATO, but as a completely unpredictable partner.”

Greater contribution from Europeans is imperative

What is unclear about all of these options is the reaction of top military personnel. During the first Trump presidency, former generals such as Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chief of Staff Mark Milley were seen as voices of reason. However, a re-elected President Trump would have the authority to fire almost all executive officials. Instead, he could place military officers he likes on the general staff. As a reminder, it was General Milley who restricted Trump's nuclear weapons command in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol.

Back to the birthday party in July and the question of life insurance for Europeans. For a long time, NATO without the USA seemed unthinkable. Actually for 75 years. But a re-elected US President Joe Biden – a proven transatlanticist – will sooner rather than later demand a different distribution of burdens in NATO. According to political scientist Majda Ruge from the European Council on Foreign Relations, we have to be prepared for this. “Ultimately, Germany must once again assume a role that the Bundeswehr had in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, namely as the backbone of conventional defense against Russia.”