WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump is seriously weighing a U.S. withdrawal from NATO after European allies rejected his request to help protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. If that happens, it could end America’s 75-year role in the world’s strongest military alliance.

For months, Trump has pushed NATO members to carry more of the defense load. Now, their refusal during a major crisis appears to have pushed him to the edge. “This was a great test,” he said, arguing that America’s allies failed it.

The dispute comes as the United States and Israel remain at war with Iran, a conflict that began in late February 2026. In response, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. That narrow passage handles about one-fifth of the world’s oil. Its shutdown has driven up global energy prices and raised fresh fears about supply chains.

Trump’s Long Campaign to Pressure NATO

Trump’s anger with NATO didn’t start with this crisis. Since returning to the office in January 2025, he has repeatedly challenged the alliance’s value. He has also demanded that member states spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, a mark many still have not reached.

In recent months, he stepped up those loyalty tests. He attacked allied support levels in Afghanistan and Ukraine. “We’ve been very sweet,” Trump told the Financial Times. “We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine… Now we’ll see if they help us.”

Then came the Hormuz standoff, which appears to have become the tipping point. Trump asked NATO countries to send warships, minesweepers, and naval escorts. He presented the request as a modest return for decades of U.S. protection.

Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters

The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and Oman. Oil tankers cross it every day, carrying crude from the Persian Gulf to world markets. After U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran used mines, drones, and speedboats to block the route.

As a result, oil prices climbed fast. Europe and Asia felt the shock first. Trump called on “countries that receive oil through the Hormuz Strait” to join the effort to reopen it. He also reached out to China and other nations outside the alliance.

“We have had such Military Success,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!”

Still, he made clear that the refusal could damage NATO itself. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”

European Allies Say No

European governments pushed back hard. Many described the fighting as “Trump’s war,” not a NATO mission. Here’s how key allies responded:

• Germany: A spokesman for Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, “This war has nothing to do with NATO. It is not NATO’s war.” Defense Minister Boris Pistorius added, “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do… This is not our war; we have not started it.”
• France: French officials showed no sign they would send ships. Earlier, President Emmanuel Macron had called the Iran strikes “illegal.”
• United Kingdom: Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Britain would not be “drawn into a wider war.” Trump had already brushed off any British carrier support.
• Other NATO members: Italy, Luxembourg, and several others took the same line. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the strait falls “out of NATO’s area of action” and added that there was “no appetite” for involvement.

Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel called Trump’s demand “blackmail.” Retired British Gen. Nick Carter said the request was ironic because NATO is a defensive alliance, not a tool for “wars of choice.”

Only a few smaller member states showed limited openness. Most did not budge.

Trump Hits Back, Calls NATO a “One-Way Street”

Trump responded angrily from the Oval Office. “All of the NATO allies agreed with us, but they don’t want to help us, which is amazing.” He described NATO as a “one-way street,” saying the United States spends hundreds of billions defending others and gets little back.

When reporters asked whether he might reconsider U.S. membership, Trump said, “It’s certainly something that we should think about. I don’t need Congress for that decision.” He added that he had “nothing currently in mind” but was “not exactly thrilled.”

Legal experts point to a 2023 law that requires Senate approval for a NATO withdrawal. Trump says he could get around that through a legal loophole.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies, echoed the mood. After speaking with the president, he wrote, “Never heard him so angry in my life.”

Why This Could Matter Worldwide

A U.S. exit from NATO would shake global security. The alliance was created after World War II to counter Soviet power. Today, it includes 32 members. Without the United States, Europe’s defense posture against Russia could weaken sharply.

Meanwhile, energy markets are already under strain. Oil prices rose after the blockade, and those higher costs are spreading to consumers. Europe now faces the risk of tighter energy supplies and more inflation.

The crisis also puts pressure on support for Ukraine. Europe has relied heavily on U.S. backing there. At the same time, Trump’s focus on Iran, along with sanctions waivers for Russian oil, has made the picture even more complicated.

Military Risks and Political Fallout

Retired military leaders warn that escorting tankers through the strait would be dangerous. Mines and Iranian attacks make the route risky, even for the U.S. Navy.

Analysts say the dispute cuts to the heart of NATO’s purpose. As Gen. Carter put it, “NATO was created as a defensive alliance.” It was never meant to let one member launch a conflict and then expect everyone else to join in.

Some European officials are worried in private. They fear losing U.S. protection while Russia watches closely. Others say the moment confirms that Trump puts “America First” above long-term alliances.

Trump insists the United States can reopen the Strait on its own. “We do not need the help of anyone,” he said. Even so, his repeated requests for support show how much pressure the situation has created.

What Comes Next

The White House has said little about its next move. Trump could answer allied resistance with tariffs or cuts in aid. Congress, however, may challenge any serious attempt to pull the U.S. out of NATO.

For now, the Hormuz blockade remains in place. American forces are operating without allied backing, and oil tankers are still steering clear.

This crisis may mark a major turning point. Trump’s long effort to test NATO loyalty has reached its peak, and Europe’s refusal could drive the biggest shift in transatlantic ties since 1949.

The alliance that helped win the Cold War is now facing one of its hardest tests, and this time, the threat is coming from inside.

Related News:

Allies Abandoning US Over Iran Sparks Fears of Trump Dumping NATO

WASHINGTON, D, C. – President Donald Trump took aim at US allies on Tuesday after they refused to join US defensive moves tied to Iran. He said the United States no longer needs their backing after years of carrying most of the alliance’s defense costs.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said the US covers about 62 to 70 percent of NATO’s total defense spending, roughly $980 billion in 2025 alone. He called the allies’ refusal a “very foolish mistake” and framed it as a loyalty test that showed who stands with America in a crisis.

His remarks quickly stirred alarm in Washington and across Europe. Lawmakers and foreign policy analysts now say Trump could move closer to pulling the US out of NATO. At the same time, the White House is pushing ahead with a new group, the “Board of Peace,” which many see as a step away from the 77-year-old alliance and other long-standing global institutions.

Trump Criticizes Allies: “They Don’t Want to Get Involved”

Trump made the comments during a media appearance centered on US operations in the Middle East. He said most NATO members told American officials they would not take part in strikes or naval efforts tied to securing the Strait of Hormuz.

“I think NATO is making a very foolish mistake,” Trump said. “Everyone agrees with us on Iran, but they don’t want to help. We no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO countries’ assistance.”

He then added, “I’ve long said I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So this was a great test.”

The moment comes with tensions already running high. US forces are leading defensive strikes on Iranian targets under Operation Epic Fury. NATO allies offered diplomatic support, yet they stopped short of military action because of domestic pressure and fears of a wider conflict.

The US Share of NATO Spending: A Long-Running Complaint

Trump again pointed to what he sees as an unfair financial split inside NATO. Recent alliance figures support the broad point he has made for years.

Here are the numbers he highlighted:

• The United States spent an estimated $980 billion on defense in 2025.
• That accounts for about 62 percent of NATO’s total combined spending, around $1.59 trillion.
• Some estimates place the US share closer to 70 percent when nuclear deterrence and global logistics are included.
• The rest of NATO spent far less, with the United Kingdom next at $90.5 billion.
• All 32 members reached the 2 percent of GDP target in 2025, but the US is still far outspending every other ally at 3.2 percent of GDP.

Trump has long said this gap makes NATO a poor deal for American taxpayers. On Tuesday, he tied that argument directly to the Iran standoff, saying the burden is even harder to justify when allies refuse to act.

Refusal to Help Fuels Fears of a US Break From NATO

European leaders moved fast to contain the fallout. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom released statements supporting US leadership, but none promised troops or ships. One senior NATO diplomat, speaking privately, told reporters, “No one wants to get dragged into another Middle East war.”

That response only added to the sense that relations may be nearing a breaking point. Trump has threatened to leave NATO before, and now some officials believe he may try to act. Congress passed a law in 2023 requiring its approval for any formal withdrawal. Still, legal experts say a president determined to test that limit could create a major crisis by cutting troop levels in Europe or refusing to honor Article 5.

Some former Trump officials say the Iran dispute struck a personal nerve. One insider put it this way: “This was the moment allies were supposed to step up. Instead, they left America holding the bag again.”

What a US Exit From NATO Could Mean

A full US withdrawal is no longer treated as just a theory. For years, think tanks and military planners have studied what could happen if America walked away.

Here is what many of those assessments suggest:

• Europe would face an immediate security gap: Without US forces, bases, and nuclear protection, Russia could test NATO’s eastern edge. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states already fear hybrid attacks or worse.
• Nuclear deterrence would weaken: Britain and France have nuclear weapons, but many experts say they cannot fully replace the American shield. Some scenarios show renewed debate over nuclear arms across Europe.
• The US would lose access and reach: America depends on European ports, airfields, and intelligence links. Without them, projecting force into the Middle East and Africa would get harder and more costly.
• Russia and China could benefit: Moscow might push harder in Ukraine or elsewhere. Beijing could use the split to press its own interests in Asia. Some war games predict a Russian move against NATO territory within three years.
• Europe would spend more, but not fast enough: Non-US NATO members have raised spending to about 2.3 percent of GDP. Even if they climbed to 3 or 4 percent, they would still lack many US capabilities, including airlift, satellites, and heavy armor.
• Washington would face legal and political turmoil: Courts would likely weigh in on presidential power, while Congress could try to block funding or force a showdown.
• One-on-one security deals could replace the alliance model: Trump could favor direct pacts with countries like Poland or the UK while pushing others aside. That would fit the more transactional style he has often preferred.
• Economic effects could spread quickly: Supply chains could take a hit, oil prices could jump if threats around the Strait of Hormuz grow, and a more divided Europe could trigger new sanctions fights.

In short, NATO might still exist without the United States, but it would look much weaker. Europe would face more risk, while the US might save money in the short term but lose influence over time.

Trump’s “Board of Peace” Signals a Different Path

While criticizing NATO, Trump is also building what he presents as an alternative. His new Board of Peace held its first major meeting in February 2026. Under its charter, Trump serves as chairman for life.

The group is described as a lean, deal-focused body built around practical outcomes, starting with Gaza reconstruction. It has already secured $5 billion in pledges. Unlike NATO or the United Nations, membership requires major financial commitments and follows America’s priorities.

Supporters point to several key differences:

• Trump has permanent control.
• The group centers on peace through strength and economic pressure, not long committees.
• It includes select partners, even some outside the usual Western circle, while leaving out reluctant European allies.
• It addresses global flashpoints like Gaza without using NATO-style collective defense rules such as Article 5.

People close to the administration describe the Board of Peace as Trump’s long-term answer to what they see as outdated global structures. One adviser summed it up this way: “NATO was useful in the Cold War. The Board of Peace is built for today’s world.”

Part of Trump’s Broader Fight Against Global Institutions

The clash over Iran fits into Trump’s larger battle with what he calls the “globalist elite.” For years, he has argued that organizations like NATO, the UN, and the World Economic Forum put outside interests ahead of US priorities.

His message has stayed the same: Allies should pay more, or America should step back. In his view, the Iran dispute proves the point. He says Europe’s hesitation was not just about one conflict. He sees it as more proof that allies still resist sharing real risk and real cost.

Critics say that the approach could leave America isolated. Supporters argue it finally puts “America First” into practice.

Democrats, along with some Republicans, warn that abandoning NATO would hand a strategic win to Russia and China. Trump argues the current system already weakens the US by asking it to do too much for too many.

What Happens Next

The White House has not announced any formal move to leave NATO. Even so, Trump’s team is reviewing US troop levels in Europe. At the same time, staff tied to the Board of Peace are expanding contacts in Asia and the Middle East.

European leaders are set to hold emergency NATO meetings next week. Several governments have also started quiet bilateral talks with Washington to protect their own interests if tensions grow.

For now, one point stands out. Trump’s patience with allies he sees as free-riders appears to be gone. The Iran dispute showed exactly where each side stands. Whether that leads to a full US break from NATO, or a reshaped security order built around the Board of Peace, may become the biggest foreign policy story of 2026.

American voters are paying close attention. After years of hearing complaints about unfair deals, many now say they want change. The next few weeks may show whether Trump’s sharp words turn into a historic shift.

Related News:

Carney and Starme’s Iran U-Turn Betrays Their Closest Ally

Trump Slams UK’s Starmer Over Too-Late Aircraft Carrier Offer

Trump Announces U.S. Forces Totally Obliterated Iran’s Kharg Island

WASHINGTON, D.C. – White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly pushed back on former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent’s resignation letter, saying it included “many false claims” about whether Iran posed an immediate danger to the United States.

Kent, a longtime Trump ally and military veteran, stepped down from his senior intelligence role on March 17, 2026. In his letter, he argued that the U.S. struck Iran based on false grounds and pressure from Israel. Leavitt answered within hours, saying President Donald Trump moved forward because of “strong and compelling evidence” that Iran was preparing to attack.

The dispute has exposed strain inside the Trump administration early in its military campaign against Iran, called Operation Epic Fury. It has also stirred new concerns about internal trust, alleged leaks, and who had access to classified intelligence.

Joe Kent’s resignation letter claims Iran was not an immediate threat

Early Tuesday, Kent posted his resignation letter on X, formerly Twitter. In it, he wrote:

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Kent, a former congressional candidate from Washington state and a strong “America First” voice, called on Trump to change direction and consider the human and political cost of the conflict. He argued the strikes did nothing for the American public and put U.S. lives at risk.

The letter spread quickly online and split many conservatives. Some applauded Kent for speaking against another Middle East war. Others, including senior Trump officials, viewed it as a break from a man who had once held the president’s confidence.

Karoline Leavitt says Kent’s claims are false

Leavitt responded on X with a pointed statement aimed directly at Kent’s version of events. Her message left little room for doubt.

“There are many false claims in this letter but let me address one specifically: that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” Leavitt wrote. “This is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over.”

She then pointed to Trump’s own position. “As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first.”

Leavitt also stressed that the president decides what rises to the level of a national threat. She added that, from what she sees inside the White House, Trump focuses on what he believes serves the country’s best interests.

She also rejected Kent’s claim that Israel drove the decision. Leavitt called that charge “both insulting and laughable” and said Trump’s stance on Iran has been consistent for years, especially on the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Her response framed the strikes as the result of intelligence from multiple sources, not pressure from another country. She also repeated the administration’s view that Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism and has long threatened Americans at home and abroad.

Insider says Kent had been shut out of key briefings for months

The White House case grew stronger after Fox News correspondent Aishah Hasnie reported details from a senior administration official. Those details offered a clear reason for the gap between Kent’s claims and the administration’s position.

According to the official:

• Joe Kent had a reputation inside the administration as a suspected leaker.
• Because of those concerns, officials cut him off from presidential intelligence briefings months ago.
• He did not take part in Iran planning meetings or related briefings.

That helps explain the disconnect Leavitt pointed to earlier in the day. Kent did not have access to the classified material that, according to the White House, showed Iran had strengthened its capabilities and may have been preparing an attack against the United States.

Hasnie later added that, according to background from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was not directly told to remove Kent. Still, the core point remained the same. Kent had been kept away from Iran-related intelligence, which left him working from old or incomplete information.

Officials cited several reasons for sidelining him:

• Suspected leaks tied to sensitive operations
• A months-long removal from top-level presidential briefings
• No role in Iran strike planning sessions
• A major information gap on the evidence Trump reviewed before authorizing action

Taken together, those details support the administration’s claim that Kent resigned over a policy area from which he had already been excluded. In the White House view, that made his letter both inaccurate and poorly informed.

Trump says Kent is out for the right reason.

Trump addressed the resignation during remarks from the Oval Office on Tuesday afternoon. He called Kent “very weak on security” and made his position plain.

“It’s a good thing he’s out, because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat, every country realized what a threat Iran was.”

His remarks matched Leavitt’s response and showed the administration speaking with one voice on the Iran strikes. Trump also repeated that Iran’s regime is “evil” and said it has targeted America for years.

The fallout points to bigger divisions inside Trump’s coalition

Kent’s exit is the first major resignation inside the Trump administration tied directly to the Iran conflict. As a result, it highlights early splits inside the broader “America First” movement.

Backers of Kent say his letter reflects real concern about repeating old mistakes in the Middle East. On the other hand, his critics say his removal from briefings proves he was out of the loop and no longer a reliable voice on the matter.

The episode also puts a spotlight on larger issues inside the White House, including intelligence security and staff oversight:

• Why were leak concerns allowed to linger for months?
• What part did Tulsi Gabbard play in handling Kent’s status?
• Will more officials break ranks as the Iran campaign continues?

Administration officials say the strikes were needed to stop an Iranian attack before it reached U.S. soil. Leavitt’s statement, along with the briefing details shared later, appears meant to block any claim that Trump acted too quickly or under outside pressure.

As the conflict moves forward, the White House is trying to project unity and control. Leavitt’s fast response sent a blunt message. Internal disagreement may happen, but the administration says the fact, and the classified intelligence behind Trump’s decision comes first.

Kent has not publicly answered the leak claims or Leavitt’s remarks since resigning. The National Counterterrorism Center has not named an acting director.

The full picture of Iran’s nuclear progress and any planned attacks remains classified. Even so, the administration says the evidence was overwhelming and that Trump made the call on his own authority as commander in chief.

The fight over Kent’s resignation shows how much access matters in national security. Real-time intelligence can shape how leaders see a threat, and without it, they may reach very different conclusions.

Related News:

Karoline Leavitt Corrects CBS News, Over ICE Deportation Numbers