Patrick Li — May 26, 2026
Whether it be controversial business dealings lambasted by political opponents, a highly publicized marital life, or even gold plated excess as a personal brand, it is abundantly true that President Trump’s relationship with personal business (both socially and financially) has long been defined as transactional and self-centric. That mentality has bled into foreign policy. Whether it be Iran, Ukraine or even economic protectionism in the form of tariffs, the current conversation over NATO’s transatlantic rift has empirically turned from initial woes over defense spending into a fundamental clash over whether NATO exists for collective defense or the maintenance of American geopolitical hegemony.
Start with Ukraine. Following Russia’s 2022 invasion, the vast majority of European countries rallied behind Ukrainian sovereignty in the form of massive defense spending packages, with even Finland and Sweden (traditionally neutral countries opposed to total military alliance) initiating the path to membership. However, to Trump, especially clear following the end of Biden’s term, support for Ukrainian defense spending obligations were massive fiscal burdens that required almost immediate reciprocity from allies; to him, they also had to pay their ‘fair share.’ In early March 2025, the Trump administration froze and reviewed all military assistance to Ukraine; this decision followed his infamous Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Zelensky’s choice of clothing (a traditional military-style black polo shirt) was criticized.
This distinction has become more apparent as tensions surrounding Iran and the broader middle continue to escalate in 2026. Despite an exponentially growing energy crisis as a result of Iran’s blockading of the Strait of Hormuz—effectively 20% of the world’s oil has stopped flowing through—and ample American pressure for NATO members to intervene in stopping this instability, several major European powers have refused, fundamentally arguing that NATO’s original purpose was for collective defense of European territory rather than participation in a solely unilateral conflict (to which many also argue was also entirely self-inflicted by America). As of right now, France, Italy, Germany and Britain have refused to commit naval assets, fearing regional escalation and an Iraq-style war. Trump has responded furiously to this pushback. In numerous public statements, he has quite literally questioned the future viability of NATO if traditionally staunch pro-America European allies refuse to support American forces in Iran. It was further reported that Trump has privately floated the possibility of reducing weapons support for Ukraine further unless European NATO members join a coalition to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The tangible consequences of this are already clear; across Europe, numerous leaders have discussed the possibility of creating a “European NATO” contingency plan that is structurally able to act independently of American pressure.
Read more here:
