How did Trump's 'America First' doctrine reshape alliances like NATO and US commitments abroad?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine has pushed the United States toward transactional diplomacy, pressuring NATO members to raise defense spending and prompting European debate about U.S. reliability; reporting cites allied pledges to increase defense outlays (variously 3.5%–5% of GDP) and persistent worries that U.S. commitments could be reduced or reshaped [1] [2] [3]. Analysts and institutions warn this shift forces Europe to plan for greater self-reliance while supporters point to concrete NATO spending gains as evidence the approach delivered results [4] [1] [2].
1. “America First” in practice: transactional leverage and defense spending
Trump’s approach treats alliances as bargains to be renegotiated: he demanded that NATO allies “pay their fair share,” and the administration pressed for large increases in allied defense budgets—reports range from most NATO countries agreeing to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense plus 1.5% on defense infrastructure to White House claims of allies moving toward a 5% target—framing the outcome as a success of pressure politics [1] [2]. Proponents portray higher allied spending as a measurable payoff for U.S. pressure; critics say these gains reflect anxiety about U.S. reliability more than genuine strategic convergence [2] [1].
2. Credibility costs: doubts about Article 5 and U.S. commitments
Multiple outlets and think tanks document that Trump’s rhetoric and policy choices have seeded doubt about Washington’s willingness to invoke NATO’s mutual-defense clause, prompting concern among European capitals that the U.S. might reduce troop levels, intelligence sharing, or even ignore Article 5 under conditions it deems unfair [5] [6]. Academic and policy pieces stress that even the specter of U.S. disengagement—withdrawal, force reductions, or selective defense guarantees—creates strategic risk and has driven allies to hedge [3] [7].
3. European responses: “more spending” — and “more independence”
European governments have responded in two ways documented across reporting: short-term, by boosting defense budgets and capability commitments to reassure deterrence; and longer-term, by debating mechanisms for strategic autonomy (including plans to replace U.S. enablers), reflecting a recognition that longstanding dependence on U.S. force projection may no longer be guaranteed [1] [4]. Analysts warn that rebuilding or substituting transatlantic military enablers will be costly and slow, and that hedging introduces fragmentation risks within NATO [4] [7].
4. Policy innovation or geopolitical risk? Competing interpretations
Advocates argue America First produced immediate, tangible benefits: allies spending more and allies being forced to shoulder greater burden, which proponents say strengthens deterrence without ruinous consequences [2] [1]. Opponents—including academic centers and editorial commentary—contend the doctrine undermines the post‑1945 rules-based order, weakens collective institutions, and could embolden adversaries by injecting uncertainty into alliance guarantees [8] [6]. Both sides point to the same facts—higher allied spending and growing debates about European autonomy—but draw opposite strategic conclusions [2] [4] [8].
5. The Ukraine question: peace plans, guarantees and alliance tensions
The Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Russia–Ukraine war have included proposals for NATO‑style security guarantees and incentives like sanction relief, a move that has provoked disagreement among NATO members over unity and long‑term deterrence [9] [10]. Some reporting says the U.S. plan would effectively commit Washington to defend Ukraine under specific conditions—creating tension between an “America First” preference for transactional deals and the alliance’s collective posture [10] [9].
6. Institutional and political limits: withdrawal vs. recalibration
Scholars and policy pieces emphasize limits on abrupt rupture: formal withdrawal from NATO would face legal, political, and institutional hurdles (including congressional constraints), yet commentators note Trump’s rhetoric and policy signals could achieve much the same effect—reduced presence and attention in Europe—without a formal exit [3] [7]. That ambiguity is a structural vulnerability: U.S. domestic politics can reshape commitments quickly, and allies must plan under persistent uncertainty [7] [6].
7. What to watch next
Watch allied defense budgets versus capability delivery (not just headline GDP percentages), NATO force posture (troop levels and enablers), and whether U.S. proposals on Ukraine are implemented with allied coordination or pursued bilaterally—each will indicate whether America First is producing durable burden‑sharing or simply substituting short‑term pressure for long‑term alliance cohesion [2] [4] [10].
Limitations: available sources do not quantify long-term operational effects on NATO deterrence or fully predict whether higher allied spending will translate into interoperable capabilities; reporting shows clear trends but not definitive outcomes [1] [4].