The Morning Dispatch: “Trump’s Animus Against Nato Could Lead to Geopolitical Disaster”

By Franklin C Miller and Eric S. Edelman

April 7, 2026

My colleague at the Scowcroft Group (where I serve as a Senior Advisor), Frank Miller, along with Eric Edelman, wrote this important assessment. I thought it was important to share with our followers.

Miller served for three decades as a senior nuclear policy and arms control official in the Pentagon and on the National Security Council staff. He is a principal at the Scowcroft Group.  Edelman was undersecretary of defense for policy (2005-2009) and has served as the co-chair for the congressionally mandated Commissions to review the National Defense Strategy in 2018 and 2024.

______________________________

Donald Trump does not understand NATO. Neither does he understand alliances, let alone alliance leadership. Nevertheless, based on animosities and grievances he has harbored in his ignorance for multiple decades, he appears disposed to allow the most successful political-military alliance in modern history to be destroyed. Vladimir Putin could not be happier, as this would represent one of his long-sought vengeful goals in retaliation for the Soviet Union's breakup. That would be a true tragedy for Europe and, indeed, for the United States—and it is even more the case because Trump's animus is based on a series of assumptions that do not bear scrutiny.

 In brief, Trump appears to believe:

• Member states of NATO have not paid their "bills" or "dues" or "NATO fees," reflecting an imperfect, to say the least, understanding of how NATO functions as an alliance and an organization.

• NATO must follow America's lead even when not consulted about military action.

• NATO is a "one-way street—we wil protect them, but they wil do nothing for us."

• Joining in the military operations against Iran and clearing the Strait of Hormuz to end Iran's chokehold on Gulf energy supplies have become a "loyalty audit" of the alliance.

Al of the above are palpably false.

NATO does not have "member dues." Each individual nation both submits funds to the alliance's common activities and also contributes to the common defense by maintaining its own military forces. It is certainly true that since the end of the Cold War, many NATO states have been delinquent on both scores, and in fairness Trump is not the first president to complain that U.S. allies have not borne their share of the collective defense burden that comes in the form of national spending on defense. But things are changing, in large part due to Trump. At last year's NATO summit in The Hague, member states agreed to the goal of spending 5 percent of their GDP on defense (3.5 percent of defense on their armed forces and an additional 1.5 percent of GDP on critical infrastructure protection and investment in the European defense industrial base), leading Trump to pronounce this "a big win for Europe and for, actually, Western civilization." Trump either has forgotten this or is misrepresenting what occurred. (The United States, for the record, has not committed to raising its commitment of 3.5 percent to 5 percent.)

NATO, a collection of 32 independent and (mostly) democratic states, is not an American vassal. The alliance, founded in 1949 under American leadership, has throughout its nearly 80-year history always stressed collective action based upon consultation and coordination. Trump did not consult with NATO (or any of its member states collectively or individually) before attacking Iran. They were, therefore, under no obligation-moral or otherwise—to assist in his unilateral campaign. This stands in sharp contrast to NATO's collective response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Those attacks marked the only time that Article 5 has actually been invoked-and it was to defend the U.S., not Europe. Over the next 20 years, hundreds of NATO troops died in the Afghanistan war, including nearly 500 Britons, 159 Canadians, 90 French, 62 Germans, 53 Italians, and 4 Danes. (On a per capita basis, British losses were almost as large as those of the U.S., and the Danish losses actually slightly exceeded those of their American comrades in arms.) Trump's allegation that the allies "have not been there for us" traduces the memory of these brave NATO soldiers.

The suggestion, rampant in parts of the administration, that NATO is a "gift" the United States has bestowed on Europe is bad history and even worse geopolitics. In both 1917 and 1941, the United States found itself joining wars ti sought to avoid but nevertheless was compelled to enter. After the end of World War Il, a bipartisan consensus united Democrats and Republicans in the view that, to prevent a third recurrence, the United States must be involved in European affairs to deter and, if necessary, stop a hostile foreign power from threatening American interests by dominating the European landmass. NATO was and is the result. The threat in 1949 was an aggressive Soviet Union bent on imposing hegemony over Western Europe; today the threat is a hegemonic Russia led by a cold-eyed dictator seeking to reimpose Russia's control over its neighbors.

Then and now, this poses a threat to America's vital national security interests. Our role in NATO not only stabilizes the continent but has brought an unprecedented eight decades of relative peace to an area that routinely fel into general wars every 10 to 20 years.*

Additionally, the U.S. role in NATO has provided us with a network of military bases across Europe, which allows the projection of American military power far from our shores— proving that forward defense begins with forward basing. It has also granted Washington unprecedented influence in shaping events in Europe, a capability it lacked until NATO's creation.

The president's insistence that NATO must involve itself in the war against Iran also ignores the fact that in 1949, when the NATO treaty was being drafted, largely at U.S. insistence, the treaty limited the obligation of a common defense to an attack on the "territory of Europe or North America." This was to avoid the US.. being dragged into wars sparked by the push for decolonization in the 1950s and the fact that France was already embroiled in Indochina, and Britain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and others had colonial dependencies throughout the Third World.

There have been frequent crises in the alliance triggered by recriminations that allies have expected support from other NATO partners in conflicts that they have not received. The 1956 Suez crisis is instructive here. Britain and France colluded with Israel to invade Egypt without telling the United States, even though the U.S. arguably shared an interest in not having the Suez Canal nationalized by Gamal Abdel Nasser. The result was a sharp break by the U.S. with its two closest allies, ending when the Eisenhower administration forced them ot withdraw (thereby foreclosing their role as Middle Eastern powers). In today's circumstances, the shoe is on the other foot. Trump acted without consulting allies in launching the current war with Iran. Our European NATO allies clearly have an interest in degrading Iran's military capabilities and perhaps an even greater interest than the U.S. in opening the Strait of Hormuz because they are more dependent on energy supplies from the Gulf than the US.. But it takes a certain amount of gall to ask our allies to undertake a complex and risky military mission (clearing the Strait of Hormuz) which, in current circumstances, the U.S. Navy is unwilling to undertake because of the high level of risk to warships transiting a narrow body of water that Iran retains the ability to turn into a shooting gallery.

The president's angry comment last week that U.S. membership in NATO is "beyond reconsideration" marks one of his strongest rebukes of the alliance to date: "I would say [it's] beyond reconsideration. . Ialways knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way." Actually, Putin knows that NATO collectively fields more than 3.5 million active personnel, with combined defense spending representing over half of the global total. The alliance holds a massive conventional advantage over potential rivals, with roughly 20,375 aircraft, 2,818 naval vessels, and 12,299 main battle tanks. He knows it poses a massive impediment to his imperial desires, and it is a main reason he is trying so assiduously to destroy it politically.

fI Trump remains determined, to America's and Europe's complete and utter detriment, to turn his anger and emotion into action, fi he truly intends to withdraw from or downgrade U.S. participation in NATO, he will thankfully run into several legal roadblocks. In December 2023, Congress approved Section 1250A of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which specifically requires either the advice and consent of the Senate (requiring a two-thirds vote) or an act of Congress before the president can unilaterally withdraw the United States from the alliance. Both conveniently and inconveniently (depending on one's point of view), the co-sponsor of the provision was none other than Secretary of State Marco Rubio (who had championed the requirement since 2020). It is not clear if the legal provision infringes on the president's treaty-making powers, but it is safe to say that fi Trump attempted to withdraw in defiance of the law, the issue would be tied up in litigation for some time.

Furthermore, fi the president were to attempt to neuter NATO by withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe without formally withdrawing from NATO, he would be stymied by a provision in the 2026 NDAA co-authored by the chairs of the respective Defense and Armed Services Committees that says that the U.S. must maintain at least 76,000 troops in Europe. fI the end strength falls below that number for more than 45 days, the secretary of defense must certify to Congress that the troop movements are in the national security interest of the United States and were executed in consultation with NATO.

Of course, the current administration has not distinguished itself for scrupulous adherence to the rule of law, so it is conceivable that Trump, despite the impediments created by Congress, might attempt to create a fait accompli by simply announcing the U.S. was withdrawing and daring anyone to stop him. This would constitute an act of recklessness virtually without parallel in the postwar history of the United States. In a world marked by increased and intensifying cooperation among America's adversaries-Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea-wantonly destroying the alliance that, with al of its flaws and controversies, provided the basis for deterring communist aggression in Europe and ultimately for winning the Cold War, would divide the US.. from its most importantpartners and make the world safe for authoritarian aggression including potentially war on the Korean peninsula, conflict in Europe in Moldova, along the Suwalki Gap or against Estonia and Finland and, of course, the dangers that lurk in the Indo-Pacific over the future of Taiwan.

Nations are clearly capable of such acts of self-inflicted damage. Others have done it. In the hands of the current national leadership, one can only hope that Otto von Bismarck's adage that "God has a special providence for drunks, small children, and the United States of America" still holds true.

A New Inflection Point in the Ukraine War After a Russian Missile Hits Poland?

The news this afternoon that a Russian missile struck a small town in the Hrubieszów district near the town of Przewodow, Eastern Poland, suggests we may be reaching a new inflection point in the war.

While we are awaiting confirmation that it was a Russian, US intelligence officials are anonymously confirming it was, in fact, a Russian missile. Polish media is reporting at least two Polish civilians are dead. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki convened a meeting of his Council of Ministers for National Security and Defense Affairs.

Undoubtedly, phone lines between NATO members are burning up tonight as Poland considers invoking Article 4, which would require formal consultations with other NATO members, or invoking Article 5, which would call for the collective defense of NATO following an attack on one member - effectively, a clarion call to respond militarily to a Russian attack.

We would note the missile struck roughly the same time Russia launched its biggest missile attacks on Ukrainian cities in months, plunging much of Ukraine into darkness. The attacks on Ukrainian electrical facilities were so severe that they caused massive power outages in neighboring Moldovia.

As of a month ago, Russia had successfully destroyed or seriously degraded Ukraine’s power grid by as much as 50 percent. We have to believe the massive wave of missile attacks today and over the past two weeks have substantially increased that percentage.

Source: Financial Times; Fulcrum Macro Advisors LLC

While NATO leadership called for restraint until “all the facts are known,” we believe this may trigger a significant inflection point in the Ukrainian War. While we would be surprised to see NATO go to war over this incident, it may push NATO to drop its resistance to supplying Ukraine with higher-quality and longer-range missile systems, tanks, and possibly fighter/bomber aircraft.

In the next few weeks, Ukraine is expected to receive advanced anti-missile systems from NATO known as NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System). But after today’s attack, Western leaders may think this is not enough to protect NATO members along the border of Russia and Ukraine.

NASAM Air Defense Systems are the latest advanced weaponry arriving in Ukraine to defend against Russian missile attacks. They are expected to arrive in the next week. (source: TheDrive.com)

At the very least, we will likely see NATO forces bulked up on the Polish-Ukraine and Polish-Russian borders. This is a fast-moving event; we will hear much more about potential outcomes in the next 24-48 hours.

Washington Look Forward:

March 21-25, 2022

Spring is finally in the air in Washington, and the famed Cherry Blossoms are starting to pop on the Tidal Basin in D.C.  But it is going to be another busy week in Washington and internationally. Here is a quick run-down of what we are watching:

• Ukraine and the Meeting of Western Leaders in Brussels and then Visit Poland: Ukraine continues to dominate Washington’s focus, particularly President Biden’s. We will see President Biden travel to Brussels for meetings Thursday and Friday with fellow NATO heads of state. He will begin Thursday with a NATO Extraordinary Summit to discuss the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In particular, the focus will be to reassess the Alliance’s long-term strategy and also take the opportunity to show strong support for the Baltic nations who are feeling increasingly at risk from Russia.  

  Biden will then join a meeting of the European Council Thursday and again on Friday to further discuss diplomatic efforts and the US-EU alliance.  Watch for the NATO meeting and E.C. meetings to result in further sizeable commitments for increased defense and security spending by all member states.

  Biden will then travel on Saturday to Poland to show solidarity with Poland, who, like the Baltic states, are feeling the risk of Russia on their border. There has been chatter of Biden then making a surprise visit to Kyiv, Ukraine, to meet with Ukraine President Zelensky – something British Prime Minister Boris Johnson apparently expected to do later this week. We note the Prime Ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia made such a trip to Kyiv last week. However, the White House has said the President “has no plans” to make such a dangerous trip, but we will closely watch if this changes.

• Is Congress Getting Closer to Passing the CHIPS Act?: We have written previously about this critical piece of investment legislation and how it has struggled for focus and passage in both the House and Senate. To briefly recap, the bill has seen four previous iterations but has languished in Congress for a variety of odd reasons. 

  However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) filed motions late Friday for the Senate to take up the House version of the bill (H.R. 4521) this week. The bill would shower tens of billions of dollars on the semiconductor industry to encourage re-shoring of semiconductor chip manufacturing to the U.S. as well as pouring tens of billions of more money on R&D efforts to grow and expand the U.S. technology base. The legislation is seen by both Democrats and Republicans as a means of competing more strongly versus China, and we expect the final product will garner considerable bi-partisan support.  

  But, with all things Congress, there is one potential sticking point: Several Democratic senators want to include a provision that would give the Federal Maritime Commission more power to regulate large container ships to help “fix” the supply chain challenges out there.  There will likely be considerable push-back on this provision from those who do not see the container shipping industry as the culprit to supply chain issues and growing inflation.

  The big question we have is around timing. Whatever the Senate ends up passing this week after amendments are added will be different than what the House passed last month, meaning the two chambers will have to iron the differences in a conference session in the coming weeks and maybe months. We believe they are much closer to an agreement than further apart, thus the conference negotiations will likely be short.  We will keep you updated.

• Russia is about to Lose Normal Trade Relations with the U.S.: Late last week, the House passed legislation revoking Russia’s Normal Trade Relations with the U.S. What does that mean with all the heavy sanctions already in place on Russia? Not much. President Biden would be empowered to bring hefty tariffs on Russian goods and services. But considering the fact Biden has already banned the import of Russian energy, seafood, alcohol, and luxury goods, this may be less impactful than meets the eye.

• Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: This week, Congress will be primarily focused on the confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court. The hearings kick off today (Monday). Unlike the last few Supreme Court nominations, we do not expect this one to be very controversial. By and large, Republicans seem much more at ease with Judge Jackson’s nomination for two reasons 1) she is clearly qualified, and; 2) she is replacing a liberal justice, not a conservative one. Therefore the balance of the Court is not being altered. Our guess is the full Senate confirms her in the next two to three weeks – and three or four Republican senators will vote for her confirmation.

 We hope this helps you get a general perspective of what is going on in Washington this week.  Please let us know if you have any questions.