On April 17, 2026, former U.S. President Donald Trump reignited global debate by labeling NATO “useless” during a campaign rally in Arizona, a remark made amid rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz following Iran’s announcement of expanded naval patrols in the critical waterway. This rhetoric, coming as European allies grapple with defense spending shortfalls and U.S. Strategic focus shifts toward the Indo-Pacific, raises urgent questions about alliance cohesion and the future of transatlantic security. Here is why that matters: Trump’s critique isn’t just campaign rhetoric—it reflects a deeper structural doubt in Washington about NATO’s relevance in an era where great-power competition is increasingly defined by economic coercion, cyber warfare, and regional flashpoints far from Europe’s borders.
The timing of Trump’s comments is significant. Just days earlier, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy conducted drills near Hormuz, signaling its ability to disrupt roughly 20% of global oil trade that passes through the strait daily. While no direct confrontation occurred, the move underscored how regional instability can quickly reverberate through global energy markets, especially as Europe remains vulnerable to supply shocks following its reduced reliance on Russian fossil fuels. NATO, designed to counter Soviet aggression, now faces a paradigm where threats are asymmetric, networked, and often originate outside its traditional area of responsibility. As one analyst position it, the alliance is being asked to defend territories it was never built to protect against dangers it was never designed to deter.
What we have is not the first time Trump has questioned NATO’s value. During his presidency, he repeatedly pressed allies to meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target, a stance that, while controversial, did yield results: by 2024, 23 of 32 NATO members had reached or exceeded the benchmark, according to NATO’s own annual report. Yet his latest dismissal ignores the alliance’s evolving role—from collective deterrence to crisis response, cyber defense coordination, and even climate-related security planning. “Calling NATO useless overlooks how it has adapted,” said Dr. Lina Khatib, head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House.
“It remains the most durable political-military framework in history, not because it fights every war, but because it prevents many from starting.”
Her view is echoed by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who, in a April 16 address to the European Parliament, warned that “undermining alliance trust emboldens adversaries who seek to divide us.”
Geoeconomically, the stakes are immense. A perceived weakening of NATO could accelerate hedging behaviors among U.S. Allies, particularly in Asia, where nations like Japan and the Philippines are already recalibrating their security postures amid China’s assertiveness. If Washington’s commitment to Europe appears conditional, Tokyo may feel compelled to deepen bilateral defense ties with Canberra and New Delhi outside NATO frameworks—potentially fragmenting the liberal international order into competing blocs. Simultaneously, energy markets remain jittery: Brent crude traded above $86 a barrel on April 17, up 4% from the week prior, reflecting trader anxiety over Hormuz volatility. Any prolonged disruption could spike inflation in import-dependent economies, complicating central bank efforts to curb price pressures without triggering recession.
To contextualize the alliance’s current burden-sharing dynamics, consider the following verified data on defense expenditures among key NATO members as of 2024:
| Country | Defense Spending (% of GDP) | Defense Spending (USD Billions) |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3.4% | 916 |
| Poland | 4.1% | 35 |
| United Kingdom | 2.3% | 81 |
| Germany | 2.1% | 88 |
| France | 2.0% | 61 |
| Italy | 1.5% | 32 |
| Canada | 1.4% | 30 |
| Spain | 1.2% | 18 |
Source: NATO Defense Expenditure Report, 2024
Critics argue that NATO’s consensus-based decision-making hampers agility—a valid concern when rapid response is needed. Yet abandoning the alliance risks creating a vacuum that no ad-hoc coalition can reliably fill. History offers a warning: the interwar period’s failure to maintain collective security arrangements contributed to the conditions that led to global conflict. Today, with nuclear-armed states engaging in brinkmanship and emerging technologies lowering the threshold for miscalculation, the cost of dismantling proven stabilizers could be catastrophic—not just for Europe, but for the interconnected global system that depends on predictable rules, open seas, and allied cooperation.
The real danger lies not in Trump’s words alone, but in the erosion of strategic patience they symbolize. Allies are watching to observe whether American commitments are durable or subject to the electoral cycle. As former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder noted in a recent Foreign Affairs essay,
“Alliances are not transactional; they are investments in stability. When you question their worth, you don’t save money—you invite risk.”
That risk manifests in higher premiums for political uncertainty, reduced foreign direct investment in volatile regions, and a gradual decoupling of economic and security policies that could leave the world less prepared for the next crisis—whether it emerges from Hormuz, Taiwan, or the cyber domain.
So what happens next? Much depends on whether European capitals can sustain their defense momentum without assuming perpetual U.S. Leadership, and whether Washington can articulate a clear-eyed vision of NATO’s role in a multipolar age—one that acknowledges burdens while affirming purpose. The alliance doesn’t need to be perfect; it needs to be believed in. And right now, belief is the one thing in shortest supply.
