President Donald Trump is deeply frustrated with NATO allies who have not provided the degree of support for his plan to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz that he had expected. Leading European NATO members see the issue differently. They had not been consulted on the US-Israeli war on Iran, they argue, and NATO requires consultations that would normally entail some degree of participation in military operations. These two perspectives reflect a broader disagreement over how NATO should be used in war.
Defining the nature of a conflict and the source of the threat is central in any military alliance, whether it is an alliance between two countries or a broader coalition bound by collective defense commitments. This principle has been the foundation of the Atlantic alliance since its creation in April 1949. Key NATO members, particularly France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, believe this was a prerequisite that military operations against Iran do not meet.
For his part, Trump believes he has solid reasons to reassess NATO, which he has described as a “paper tiger” that failed to provide adequate support despite the United States bearing more than 70 percent of the alliance’s costs. Talk of punitive steps against certain members, or even the withdrawal of the US, highlights a deeper contradiction in American foreign policy. If the United States is NATO’s central pillar, its most powerful military force, and the primary deterrent against Russia in the event of a threat to European allies, then what exactly does Washington expect from partners with fewer capabilities, lower defense spending, and more limited capacity for self-defense?
Following this line of thought, Trump is leaning toward reducing the burdens of global leadership on the United States, leaving European allies to take greater responsibility for their own security, and focusing on direct economic returns for the Treasury. In turn, this is encouraging many countries to pursue more independent strategic paths, albeit to varying degrees.
European NATO states are particularly concerned about Trump’s threats at punitive measures, such as redeploying American forces in Europe and, even more worryingly, his threats of withdrawing from the alliance. That said, everyone understands that an imminent withdrawal is not an option. Congress has already passed legislation preventing the White House from exiting NATO without congressional approval and a formal legislative decision that explains how such a decision serves the national security of the United States.
These constraints prevent full withdrawal from NATO, but they do not prevent the president from taking targeted measures against members deemed to be “underperforming” and insufficiently supportive of the United States. Europe appears increasingly aware of the risks of underestimating NATO’s importance to its own security. In response, France calls for greater European strategic autonomy as a practical alternative amid shifts in US policy toward the alliance. While such calls have failed to gain traction before, there are now signs of growing European support for a new approach, albeit one that stops short of abandoning NATO altogether.
European autonomy - military, technological, economic, and financial - is beginning to take shape as Europe hedges against current and future fluctuations in US policy. One recent step in this direction came when several European countries decided to repatriate portions of their gold reserves from the United States.
The push for a unified European procurement policy that prioritizes European products over those made in the US, is another reflection of the effort to reduce dependence on the United States, as is adopting European-based platforms for financial transactions and travel rather than relying on major American platforms, a process that is beginning to reshape economic exchange across the Atlantic.
France has gone further, issuing an executive decision to ban the use of Microsoft products in government institutions, with French or European alternatives that offer stronger protection for sensitive data adopted instead. The Netherlands and Germany are considering similar measures, while voices in Italy are pushing for the same direction. These developments point to a shift in how the alliance is conceived and a move toward greater self-reliance.
This drive for independence from the United States in critical sectors is not confined to Europe. Canada’s prime minister has explicitly made the case for his country to do the same, arguing that Canada must increasingly rely on its own capabilities in sectors such as steel, timber, aluminum, and labor. According to him, the era in which 70 percent of every dollar was spent in the American market is over. Balanced partnerships with China that ensure mutual interests are not just rhetoric anymore, they are becoming policy for a number of European countries and Canada.
These overlapping developments suggest that NATO no longer carries the same weight, politically and psychologically, in Europe and Canada. The push toward self-reliance is gaining momentum and points to substantial shifts in the global order. It is a trend that warrants close attention. The question remains: can Europe truly do without the American security umbrella, or is this merely a phase?
