NATO's Unity Will Be Tested at Summit in Vilnius

A poster promoting NATO on display in central Vilnius, Lithuania, 08 July 2023. (EPA)
A poster promoting NATO on display in central Vilnius, Lithuania, 08 July 2023. (EPA)
TT
20

NATO's Unity Will Be Tested at Summit in Vilnius

A poster promoting NATO on display in central Vilnius, Lithuania, 08 July 2023. (EPA)
A poster promoting NATO on display in central Vilnius, Lithuania, 08 July 2023. (EPA)

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues with no end in sight, NATO's much-celebrated unity faces fresh strains when leaders gather for their annual summit this week in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The world’s biggest security alliance is struggling to reach an agreement on admitting Sweden as its 32nd member. Military spending by member nations still lags behind longstanding goals. And an inability to compromise over who should serve as NATO’s next leader forced an extension of the current secretary general's term for an extra year.

Perhaps most thorny are questions over how Ukraine should be eased into the alliance. Some maintain admitting Ukraine to NATO would be the fulfillment of a promise made years ago and a necessary step to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Others are fearful it would be seen as a provocation that could spiral into an even wider conflict.

Bickering among friends is not uncommon, and the current catalogue of disputes pales in comparison to past fears that Donald Trump would turn his back on the alliance during his presidency. However, the challenges come at a moment when President Joe Biden and his counterparts are heavily invested in demonstrating harmony among members.

"Any fissure, any lack of solidarity provides an opportunity for those who would oppose the alliance," said Douglas Lute, who served as US ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is eager to exploit divisions as he struggles to gain ground in Ukraine and faces political challenges at home, including the aftermath of a brief revolt by the Wagner mercenary group.

"You don’t want to present any openings," Lute said. "You don’t want to present any gaps or seams."

By some measures, the Ukraine conflict has reinvigorated NATO, which was created at the beginning of the Cold War as a bulwark against Moscow. Members of the alliance have poured military hardware into Ukraine to help with its ongoing counteroffensive, and Finland ended a history of nonalignment to become NATO’s 31st member.

"I think it’s appropriate to look at all the success," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "So, I think the invasion has strengthened NATO — exactly the opposite of what Putin anticipated."

He noted Germany’s shift toward a more robust defense policy as well as other countries’ increase in military spending.

But the ongoing war has allowed other challenges to fester or bubble to the surface.

In particular, NATO leaders said back in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually become a member, but little action has been taken toward that goal. Putin occupied parts of the country in 2014 and then attempted to capture Kyiv in 2022, leading to the current war.

"A gray zone is a green light for Putin," said Daniel Fried, a former US ambassador to Poland, and now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.

The US and Germany insist that the focus should be supplying weapons and ammunition to help Ukraine win the current conflict, rather than taking the more provocative step of extending a formal invitation to join NATO.

However, countries on NATO's Eastern flank — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland — want firmer assurances on future membership.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pushing for that as well. During a visit to Prague on Thursday, he said the "ideal" result of the Vilnius summit would be an invitation for his country to join the alliance.

Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, described the summit as "an important moment on that pathway toward membership" and that allies need to "discuss the reforms that are still necessary for Ukraine to come up to NATO standards."

NATO could use the occasion to elevate its relationship with Ukraine, creating what would be known as the NATO-Ukraine Council and giving Kyiv a seat at the table for consultations.

Also in the spotlight in Vilnius will be Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the main obstacle blocking Sweden’s attempts to join NATO alongside its neighbor Finland.

Erdogan accuses Sweden of being too lenient on anti-Islamic demonstrations and militant Kurdish groups that have waged a decades-long insurgency in Türkiye.

Sweden recently changed its anti-terrorism legislation and lifted an arms embargo on Türkiye. However, a man burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm last week, and Erdogan signaled that this would pose another obstacle. He equated "those who permitted the crime" to those who perpetrated it.

Türkiye and the US are also at an impasse over the sale of F-16 fighter jets. Erdogan wants the upgraded planes, but Biden says that Sweden’s NATO membership has to be dealt with first.

Sullivan said the US is confident that Sweden will join NATO "in the not-too-distant future," but it's unclear if the matter will be resolved during the summit.

It’s not the first time that Erdogan has used a NATO summit for Turkish gain. In 2009, he held up the nomination of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as secretary general but agreed to the move after securing some senior posts for Turkish officials at the alliance.

Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who leads the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said there's growing frustration among allies toward Erdogan, building on concerns about his ties to Putin, democratic backsliding and sanctions evasion.

"They’ve tried playing nice," Bergmann said. "The question is whether it’s time to get much more confrontational."

Hungarian Prime Minister Vitkor Orban is also delaying his country's approval of Sweden’s membership. In response, Sen. Jim Risch, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is blocking a $735 million US arms sale to Hungary.

"We don’t want members who aren’t interested in doing everything possible to strengthen the alliance rather than the pursuit of their own or individual interests," he said. "I’m just sick and tired of it."

However, Risch rejected the idea that these disagreements are a sign of weakness within NATO.

"These are kinds of things that always arise in an alliance," he said. "The fact that we’ve been able to deal with them and will continue to deal with them proves that this is the most successful and strongest military alliance in the history of the world."

At least one potentially flammable item has been taken off the summit agenda. Rather than seek consensus on a new NATO leader, members agreed to extend Jens Stoltenberg's tenure for a year. He's had the job since 2014, and it's the fourth time that his time in office has been extended.

Most wanted a woman to take the top job next, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had been considered a favorite candidate. However, Poland insisted that a candidate from the Baltic states should be next because there had already been two Nordic secretaries general in a row. (Stoltenberg was a Norwegian prime minister, and Rasmussen was a Danish prime minister.)

Others are skeptical of accepting a nominee from the Baltics, whose leaders tend to be more provocative in their approach to Russia, including supporting Ukraine's desire to rapidly join NATO.

More disagreements loom over NATO's updated plans for countering any invasion that Russia might launch on allied territory. It's the biggest revision since the Cold War, and Skip Davis, a former NATO official who is now a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said it could involve "lots of arm wrestling and card trading."

"That’s an issue that will cause tension and dissent, and that’s not what the Vilnius summit is all about," he said.



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”