ln March 2025, less than two months into his second presidency, Donald Trump doubled down on his title of “Disrupter-in-Chief,” [1] enacting sweeping changes both in domestic and foreign policy. Along with Elon Musk and his unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump ordered mass firings of federal workers, began large-scale deportation operations targeting undocumented immigrants, dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID), threatened to withhold federal funding to states that did not support his agenda, all being championed by his highly controversial cabinet agency heads that the US Senate confirmed with little opposition. Americans were reeling from the shotgun approach Trump took to governing though Executive Orders, upsetting the constitutional checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution.
Internationally, Trump further upset US neighbors, Mexico and Canada, threating tariffs, as well as suggesting Canada could be the 51st state and threatening Mexico with military intervention, labeling Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. He also threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal, as well as annex Greenland from Denmark in a show of force to reassert US dominion over the Western Hemisphere, echoing the expansionist policies of the Roosevelt Corollary [2] to the Monroe Doctrine. In September, Trump sent US Navy warships to the Caribbean Sea to bolster his aggressive counterdrug policies in the region, destroying suspected drug running boats Trump claimed were being used by “narco-terrorists” from Venezuela. [3]
Yet, it is Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance’s actions toward Europe and specifically the future of NATO and Ukraine’s sovereignty, that have worried America’s allies the most, upsetting the traditional transatlantic alliance. Blaming Ukraine for starting the war, claiming the real threat to Europe is the “enemy within,” [4] leaving Ukraine and Europe out of meetings with Russia (to include a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Alaska), and publicly berating Ukraine president Volodymir Zelenskyy all signal a major shift in US foreign policy away from its historical commitment to the transatlantic alliance and consensus that Russia is the real threat to Europe.
As a former “Cold Warrior” [5] who spent part of my military career stationed in Germany in the 1980s as an armored battalion and brigade intelligence officer, trained in Soviet military doctrine and tactics, the US commitment to NATO and Europe’s defense was never questioned. For US military personnel still serving in Europe today, and those intelligence professionals documenting Russia’s threat to America and its allies, their world has turned upside down, leaving many to question the value of their personal commitment to defending democracy against authoritarianism and upholding the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty.
So, what does all this mean for the future of the transatlantic alliance? Will NATO survive a retreat from the United States? Yes, it can.
It should begin by reexamining Canada’s proposals in the Washington Paper discussions of 1948, allowing for a means to remove member states which no longer support Article V (collective defense) and openly support authoritarianism over democracy. [6] NATO should also move in the direction of shoring up the alliance with new members, to include Ukraine, which has the most experience in confronting the Russian military. The Ukrainians have defied the odds these last three years in defending their country, confounding Putin who expected a quick victory after Russia’s successful annexation of Crimea in 2014. The difference in 2022 was the United States and Europe provided the military support necessary to forestall Russia’s advance. NATO countries should call Putin’s bluff of threatening the use of nuclear weapons, by supporting a Ukrainian offensive to retake the Donbas and parts of Eastern Ukraine under Russian control.
Even with the United States not backstopping such actions, or suspending all military aid, such resolve on the part of Europe and NATO could create a strong domestic response in the United States by Americans to force political change demanding US support for the alliance. NATO’s response to a Russian drone incursion in Poland and Romania in September 2025 demonstrated such resolve, garnering praise from many members on both sides of the aisle in the US Congress. [7] This could help to swing midterm elections to change leadership in the US Congress, with new members willing to stand up to the Trump administration. There are still a number of conservative Republicans who stand with the country’s traditional alliances and foreign policies toward Europe who value those relationships over building alliances with Putin and other authoritarian regimes. Coupled with the backlash from many of Trump’s disruptive domestic policies, American democracy can recover from the Trump administration’s ongoing assault.
Europe and the transatlantic alliance survived Trump’s first term. It can survive his second. Although many of the guardrails no longer exist and Trump has surrounded himself with willing acolytes to carry out his worst impulses, there is a tipping point coming with the American people. It is already showing up on street corners with a mobilized public standing up to extremism. Europe may need to stand on its own for a time, but its leaders should rest assured that Trump’s America is not the real America and like many tyrants who have come before, their gold statues will eventually fall.
Richard J. Kilroy Jr.
Dr., Retired Professor
Coastal Carolina University
USA
Non-resident Scholar
Baker Institute for Public Policy
Rice University
USA
[2] The Roosevelt Corollary (1904) to the Monroe Doctrine (1823) stated that the United States would intervene to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite “foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of the American nations.” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine#:~:text=The%20Roosevelt%20Corollary%20of%20December,to%20the%20detriment%20of%20the
[3] Bekiempas, Victoria, “Republican condemns Vance for ‘despicable’ comments on Venezuelan boat strike,” The Guardian, September 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/07/jd-vance-venezuelan-boat-strike-rand-paul?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
[4] Nick Paton Walsh, “Vance uses half-truths to lecture a European audience well aware of the threat of authoritarian rule,” CNN, February 14, 2025, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/world/vances-speech-upsets-european-leaders-intl-latam/index.html
[5] Cold Warrior refers to those members of the US military who served on active duty between 1945-1991. Their service was never recognized by the Department of Defense as an actual military conflict deserving of the awarding of a campaign medal.
[6] The Washington Paper documented early discussions in 1948, leading to the North Atlantic Treaty and formation of NATO in 1949. The concern voiced by the Canadian delegation to the talks at that time was a member state that came under control of a communist regime. Today, it is the threat posed by authoritarian leaders whose policies cause NATO members to question that state’s commitment to collective defense and the rules-based international order. See discussions regarding expelling Turkey for its military actions in Syria in 2019. Sari, Aurel, “Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It’s Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Pruden,” Just Security, October 19, 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/
[7] Alex Roufoglu, “White House Silence, Lawmakers’ Outcry as Russia Tests Poland’s Resolve,” Kyiv Post, September 10, 2025, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59777#:~:text=more%20confrontational%20stance.-,Test%20of%20resolve:%20bipartisan%20concerns%20emerge,our%20resolve%20in%20NATO%20territory.%E2%80%9D Back to Table of Contents
