5 min Click here to listen to this article

Share via Close extra sharing options Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsApp Copy Link URL Copied! Print

Copy Link URL Copied!

This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

It is among the most familiar patterns of the Trump era.

First, the president says or does something weird, rude or otherwise norm-defying. Some elected Republicans object, and the response from Trump and his minions is to shoot the messenger. The dynamic holds constant whether it’s big (Jan. 6 pardons) or small (tweeting “covfefe” just after midnight).

The essence of this low-road-for-me-high-road-for-thee dynamic rests on the belief that Trumpism is a one-way road. Insulting Trump, deservedly or not, is forbidden, while Trump’s antics should be celebrated when possible, defended when necessary, or ignored when neither of those responses is possible. But he should never, ever face consequences for his own actions.

This was the week Trump’s routine went global.

A number of longtime defenders of the transatlantic alliance are very angry at our allies.

NATO members have refused to allow American jets to launch from, or even fly over, their territory. They won’t help secure the Strait of Hormuz. French President Emmanuel Macron has even called for a coalition to “stand up” against both the United States and China.

I think these are serious strategic mistakes, especially Macron’s posturing to go out like a modern-day De Gaulle instead of as a lame duck. But politically, they are hardly shocking.

Let’s review how we got here.

Trump has routinely mocked our allies. For efficiency’s sake, let’s forgive all of the petty jabs from the first term ostensibly intended to get them to spend more on defense. In Trump’s second term, he claimed our NATO allies would never fight on our behalf, despite the fact that the only time NATO invoked Article 5 — an attack on one is an attack on all — was in the wake of 9/11.

Back in January, in Davos, Switzerland, Trump revised this false claim, admitting that some did fight in Afghanistan, but that “they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” This infuriated not just allied leaders, but their voters. Indeed, Trump is even unpopular with the populist right across most of Europe.

On a per capita basis, Denmark, not America, had the most casualties in Afghanistan.

Speaking of Denmark, Trump threatened to go to war with the Danes to take possession of Greenland. The threats, public and private, were so relentless and serious, Denmark had to actually plan for a war against the U.S.

Trump didn’t go as far with Canada, but he poisoned that alliance with his repeated insistence that Canada should become America’s 51st state.

Trump also cut off most direct military aid to Ukraine, opting instead to strong-arm Europe into buying American weapons to boost our defense industry. And all while lending rhetorical aid and comfort to Russian President Vladimir Putin as Trump’s “peace envoy” talked up business deals with Russia.

Trump abrogated trade agreements with our allies to levy massive tariffs on nearly all of them, forcing many countries to pursue trade agreements with China. His erratic shifting of policies and rates sent allied economies scrambling. Trump’s American defenders may roll their eyes at his openness to emoluments — a plane from Qatar, a gold bar and Rolex from Switzerland, a crown from South Korea — but just imagine how this stuff is viewed by the broader public in allied countries. Trump mocks notions of shared values, but if you bring him a trinket, he’ll talk.

Then Trump launched a surprise war on Iran without consulting our allies. When British Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggested sending aircraft carriers to help, Trump mocked him.

“That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

Trump has since changed his tune, telling reporters aboard Air Force One last month, “I’m demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory.”

Trump’s one-way-street antics work domestically, because of his support within the GOP base. But he can’t incite a primary challenge to elected allied leaders, not when he’s loathed. In January his approval rating in the U.K. was 16% (and in Denmark just 4%). One in five Europeans see America as a greater threat than China or North Korea.

Again, I think it would be good for Europe — which has seen energy prices skyrocket because of the war and still needs the U.S. for its security — to swallow some of the humiliation and help. But the refusal of Trump and his defenders to acknowledge why it’s politically hard at this point is maddening.

Trump would never dream of taking a devastating political hit for an ally. But he and his defenders cannot fathom why allies feel the same way about him.

Rutte, the ‘Trump whisperer,’ faces a fresh test as Trump turns on NATO over Iran April 9, 2026

Rutte, the ‘Trump whisperer,’ faces a fresh test as Trump turns on NATO over Iran

Voices Granderson: NATO has stepped up. So why would the U.S. now step out? April 3, 2026

Granderson: NATO has stepped up. So why would the U.S. now step out?

Trump speech on Iran war, recent remarks on oil, NATO, daycare costs land with a thud April 2, 2026

Trump speech on Iran war, recent remarks on oil, NATO, daycare costs land with a thud

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

The Trump administration has fundamentally damaged America’s relationships with longtime allied nations through a pattern of mockery, false statements, and disrespectful rhetoric toward European leaders and NATO institutions.

The Trump administration has fundamentally damaged America’s relationships with longtime allied nations through a pattern of mockery, false statements, and disrespectful rhetoric toward European leaders and NATO institutions.

Trump has repeatedly spread misinformation about NATO allies’ commitment to collective defense, falsely claiming they would never fight on America’s behalf despite the historical fact that NATO invoked Article 5 only once—in response to the 9/11 attacks—and subsequently fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan for two decades[1].

Trump has repeatedly spread misinformation about NATO allies’ commitment to collective defense, falsely claiming they would never fight on America’s behalf despite the historical fact that NATO invoked Article 5 only once—in response to the 9/11 attacks—and subsequently fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan for two decades[1].

The administration’s threats toward Denmark over Greenland were so serious and persistent that the country had to actively plan for potential military conflict with the United States, demonstrating how Trump’s rhetoric has escalated beyond typical diplomatic posturing.

The administration’s threats toward Denmark over Greenland were so serious and persistent that the country had to actively plan for potential military conflict with the United States, demonstrating how Trump’s rhetoric has escalated beyond typical diplomatic posturing.

Trump has weaponized trade policy against allies by abrogating trade agreements and imposing massive tariffs, forcing allied nations to pursue alternative trade relationships with China rather than maintain economic ties with the United States.

Trump has weaponized trade policy against allies by abrogating trade agreements and imposing massive tariffs, forcing allied nations to pursue alternative trade relationships with China rather than maintain economic ties with the United States.

The president’s erratic policy shifts and inconsistent messaging have created economic instability for allied countries while appearing willing to accept personal gifts and benefits from various nations, behavior that undermines claims of shared democratic values.

The president’s erratic policy shifts and inconsistent messaging have created economic instability for allied countries while appearing willing to accept personal gifts and benefits from various nations, behavior that undermines claims of shared democratic values.

Trump’s unilateral decision to launch military operations against Iran without consulting allies, followed by public mockery of the British Prime Minister’s offer to assist, has demonstrated contempt for traditional burden-sharing arrangements within the Western alliance.

Trump’s unilateral decision to launch military operations against Iran without consulting allies, followed by public mockery of the British Prime Minister’s offer to assist, has demonstrated contempt for traditional burden-sharing arrangements within the Western alliance.

Allied nations are now refusing to provide military support and access to their airspace because Trump’s low approval ratings in these countries make it politically impossible for their leaders to assist without facing domestic backlash, yet Trump and his supporters refuse to acknowledge responsibility for this deterioration.

Allied nations are now refusing to provide military support and access to their airspace because Trump’s low approval ratings in these countries make it politically impossible for their leaders to assist without facing domestic backlash, yet Trump and his supporters refuse to acknowledge responsibility for this deterioration.

Different views on the topic

Trump’s approach represents a necessary recalibration of American foreign policy prioritizing direct national interests rather than maintaining alliances that the administration argues have not adequately contributed to shared security obligations.

Trump’s approach represents a necessary recalibration of American foreign policy prioritizing direct national interests rather than maintaining alliances that the administration argues have not adequately contributed to shared security obligations.

The administration’s firm stance on Iran, including threats to target infrastructure, reflects a willingness to take decisive military action to protect American interests and regional security, with Trump stating “the entire country can be taken out in one night” if Iran does not comply with demands to open the Strait of Hormuz[1][2].

The administration’s firm stance on Iran, including threats to target infrastructure, reflects a willingness to take decisive military action to protect American interests and regional security, with Trump stating “the entire country can be taken out in one night” if Iran does not comply with demands to open the Strait of Hormuz[1][2].

Trump’s pressure on allies to increase defense spending and contribute more substantially to NATO obligations represents a legitimate demand for greater burden-sharing, though this perspective does not address the specific diplomatic methods employed or their consequences for alliance cohesion.

Trump’s pressure on allies to increase defense spending and contribute more substantially to NATO obligations represents a legitimate demand for greater burden-sharing, though this perspective does not address the specific diplomatic methods employed or their consequences for alliance cohesion.

© Los Angeles Times