International public opinion holds that US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy during his second term has not only influenced global political developments, but also served as a catalyst for an extensive military restructuring across the Atlantic. This issue has drawn close attention from many countries.
After US President Donald Trump began his second term, his “America First” policy was implemented. Under the pressure of this policy, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has reshaped its long-term strategic structure to adapt to the new context. This is an unprecedented move in the nearly 80-year history of the world’s largest military alliance.
 |
| Group photo at NATO Summit held in The Hague in June 2025 (photo: VNA) |
Trust shaken
According to international researchers, the foundation of trust - the invisible yet essential glue binding NATO members together for years has been shaken by President Donald Trump's statements and actions. No longer acting as the "Big Brother" of the alliance, the US leader has repeatedly emphasised "bills", burdens, and fairness from a financial perspective when discussing US contributions to NATO. This seems to have turned allied relations based on history, shared values, and collective security into a mere commercial transaction. He even went so far as to hint that he might not honour Article 5 of the NATO treaty - one of the most critical commitments, forming the foundation for the alliance’s cohesion and security guarantees over the years if member countries failed to increase their defence spending.
As a result, international military researchers believe that although the NATO Summit in The Hague (the Netherlands) in June 2025 succeeded in increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP, the spirit of unity - once a source of pride for the bloc - has been replaced by self-interest and mutual distrust among its members. At the same time, challenges from within have also been exposed as follows.
First, NATO’s dependence on President Donald Trump's political will - an issue causing concerns about the sustainability of commitments. In other words, member states are constantly cautious of the possibility that Washington might withdraw from the alliance or impose unexpected conditions on its members. Every NATO’s future decision and commitment will always be overshadowed by the question: "Will the US truly stand together this time?"
In fact, since his re-election, President Trump has pursued a foreign policy that analysts call the "pendulum", referring to rapid, strong swings between extremes: from detente to confrontation, from commitment to withdrawal, from handshakes to sanctions within short timeframes. This policy has not only broken traditional rules of international relations, but also sowed uncertainty in global strategy planning. The US leader's unexpected statements in the media about NATO, allies, troop withdrawals or shifting priorities have become a source of anxiety for the world's largest military alliance, as one senior NATO official admitted: "We wake up every morning wondering: What will the US President say today?" Public opinion holds that fundamentally, pendulum diplomacy may yield short-term tactical results, such as favourable trade deals or forcing immediate concessions from adversaries. However, in the long run, it can break strategic trust, cause anxiety for both allies and opponents, rendering the global order more fragile. According to international research experts, if the White House continues this foreign policy, growing suspicion among allies could become a “hard-to-mend” hidden rift in the trans-Atlantic security structure.
Second, disagreements over defence spending targets. Although the Alliance has basically agreed to increase defence expenditures, Spain has declared it will increase defence budget to 2.1% only. This could set a precedent, affecting future policy unity, especially when varying levels of commitment and contributions among member states is a recurring problem. Instead of a homogeneous alliance as in the past, NATO now appears fragmented, with uneven participation in various initiatives, missions, and levels of commitment within the bloc's framework. This is believed to be due to differences in the way each member perceives threats and calculates its benefits, differences in military and economic capabilities, and domestic political pressures. Many assessments suggest NATO's deterrent strength lies in its unity and unquestionable commitments. The current fragmentation and selective participation could breed distrust and rivalry among allies. Leading countries in implementing the Bloc’s policies might feel exploited by laggards, while the latter may feel pressured or marginalised by the former. In addition, coordinating actions among multiple smaller groups with differing interests may “dilute” NATO’s collective response to crises.
Third, disagreement concerning the identification of strategic competitors. While the White House identifies a major Asian power as its primary challenge to address and pushes for the Pentagon's pivot to the Indo-Pacific region, most European allies still regard Russia as the most direct and urgent security threat on the Eastern flank. They are concerned that the US pivot to Asia could weaken Washington’s presence and commitment in the Old Continent.
Changing strategic military structure across the Atlantic
After World War II, Europe fell into a state of exhaustion and vulnerability. In this context, the US emerged as the strategic pillar of the collective defence system - most notably via the establishment of NATO in 1949. Accordingly, the US provided the majority of defence resources and acted as Europe's “strategic guarantor”. Washington's commitments went beyond symbolic signatures in treaties to include actions, statements, and long-term policies under US administrations from Harry S. Truman to Barack Obama.
During that period, three pillars of the US "security umbrella" over NATO's European members included: military strength, political commitment, and financial and technological support. In terms of military strength, the US served as the frontline deployment force, with a garrison of more than 70,000 troops in Europe (2016), mainly in Germany, Italy, and the UK. NATO key commands in Brussels, Mons, and Stuttgart were all under the control of the US. Besides, Washington also provided most strategic intelligence and logistics for Europe. Regarding political commitment, US Presidents and Defence Secretaries consistently affirmed "ironclad" ties with NATO members, describing European security as a core national interest of the US. In terms of financial and technological support, the US funded about 70% of NATO's defence budget for military training, weapons, technology transfer, and data sharing from its radar and satellites systems, etc. The peak of NATO cooperation was marked by its eastward expansion with the accession of new members such as Hungary, the Czech Republic, followed by the Baltic countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the early 21st century, the US and its NATO allies deployed military forces to Afghanistan and the Balkans, and engaged in global counterterrorism efforts. In summary, from 1949 to 2016, the US security umbrella kept Europe safe based on its superior strength and strategic commitment. However, according to international researchers, the recent rise of populism in the US has shaken the foundation of this security umbrella, marking a turning point in the US - EU strategic cooperation emerged since President Donald Trump first took office in 2017. The US - EU relationship has shifted from a model of trusted alliance to a conditional "transactional" relationship. Despite not disbanding NATO or dismantling the Atlantic order, President Donald Trump’s decisions exposed latent “cracks”, forcing allies to choose their own paths. Military experts call this the first case of "strategic divergence" since 1949 and its consequences may continue for decades to come.
International public opinion holds that signs of a strategic structural shift within NATO can be observed in the formation of groups with differing defence priorities. On the Eastern flank, the UK, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria focus intensely on deterring and countering Russia. These countries are enhancing military presence, establishing forward battle groups, conducting large-scale joint exercises, and investing more in air defence, anti-tank weaponry, and border defence infrastructure. On the Southern flank, France, Italy, Spain, and Greece prioritise Mediterranean stability, counterterrorism, migration control, and dealing with challenges from North Africa and the Middle East. These countries lead maritime patrol missions and strengthen cooperation with regional partners. Meanwhile, the China counterbalance group, including the US, the UK, Canada, and several Eastern European states, actively supports Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy through joint naval drills, participation in regional security forums, and adjustments to national security policies.
In addition, NATO’s European members are also stepping up the development of their own defence autonomy through the European Defence Fund (EDF) and European Union Rapid Response Force, enabling them to act independently when necessary, especially within Europe’s own backyard. The EU is also intensifying strategic bilateral dialogues with India, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the UK and establishing multilateral alliances to gradually distance itself from the US’s unilateral strategic influence. Overall, Europe’s role in NATO is shifting from being the US’s “extended arm” to an “independent actor”. For the first time in nearly eight decades, European nations are building a security structure parallel to NATO. According to researchers, uncertainty from the US coupled with threats from the Russia-Ukraine conflict has turned EU’s strategic autonomy into a matter of survival. Therefore, in the near future, the EU will likely invest unprecedented levels of resources into independent command and control capabilities, through establishing a joint EU operational command centre for defence missions to reduce reliance on US infrastructure. Defence industry development is also a top priority, focusing on drone systems, next-generation main battle tanks, air defence systems and long-range missiles. Additionally, the EU prioritises strategic logistics and transportation through developing joint military transport fleets and heavy transport aircraft and establishing strategic reserve stockpiles.
According to international military researchers, changes in US policy have contributed to accelerating the adjustment in NATO's traditional structural model into a more pragmatic, fragmented alliance. At the same time, NATO’s future will largely depend on its ability to manage internal contradictions to maintain deterrent strength in an increasingly volatile world.
LAM PHUONG