Punishment instead of alliance - Trump openly puts NATO into question and threatens troop withdrawal

In Washington, officials are now openly considering punishing NATO states for their behavior in the Iran war. Within the administration, concrete proposals are circulating to withdraw US troops from countries that, in Donald Trump’s view, did not provide sufficient support, and to relocate them instead to states that clearly sided with the United States. This is no longer a fringe idea, but a proposal that has gained traction within government circles in recent weeks.

The idea behind it is simple and politically explosive at the same time. Military presence is no longer to follow only strategic criteria, but to be used as an instrument to reward loyalty or sanction a lack of support. Countries such as Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Greece could benefit, while other states suddenly come into focus. Spain denied the United States airspace for operations, Germany criticized the war, Italy temporarily blocked the use of an air base in Sicily, France allowed American aircraft to land only under restrictions.

Karoline Leavitt, spokesperson for the White House, put it bluntly. NATO has in recent weeks turned away from the American people, even though that very public finances the defense of many partners. Donald Trump himself further escalated the tone. NATO was not there when it was needed, and will not be there in the future either.

This is not about minor adjustments. Around 84,000 US soldiers are currently stationed in Europe. These locations are not only militarily decisive, but also economically relevant for the host countries. A withdrawal or relocation would have direct consequences for infrastructure, jobs and the military balance on the continent. At the same time, a stronger shift toward Eastern Europe would further increase tensions with Russia.

The plan remains in an early stage, but it shows how deep the fractures have become. Trump had recently even considered taking the United States completely out of NATO, which is not legally possible without the consent of Congress. Instead, ways are now apparently being sought to apply pressure without carrying out a formal break.

At the same time, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is trying to stabilize the situation. His visit to Washington was meant to improve relations, but the differences are obvious. Earlier, Rutte had already talked Trump out of bringing Greenland under American control, which had triggered its own crisis within the alliance.

European government representatives push back. They point out that they were not involved before the start of the Iran war and therefore could not provide coordinated support. The first days of the conflict unfolded without coordination, even defense ministers from NATO states were stranded when the airspace over the United Arab Emirates was closed.

What is now emerging is more than a dispute over individual decisions. It is about the question of whether a military alliance still functions as a shared security guarantee or whether it becomes an instrument of national interests. The considerations in Washington show that this line is currently being redrawn.