Trump’s wavering on his commitment to NATO goes from bad to worse

Earlier this week, Matt Whitaker, Donald Trump’s highly controversial nominee to serve as the U.S. ambassador to NATO, arrived on Capitol Hill for a confirmation hearing. His goal, evidently, was to set senators’ minds at ease.

The president’s commitment to the military alliance, Whitaker testified, was “ironclad.”

When the former acting attorney general made the comments on Tuesday, it was difficult to take his rhetoric at face value. After all, during the 2024 campaign, Trump publicly declared that he was prepared to let Russia do “whatever the hell” it wants to U.S. allies who don’t “pay [their] bills.” It followed a first term in which he reportedly expressed an interest in abandoning NATO altogether. More recently, Trump made veiled threats toward a NATO ally.

“Ironclad” is not the first word that comes to mind.

Two days after Whitaker’s testimony, the Republican president made matters considerably worse. Politico reported:

The Republican was not especially subtle about his position, saying that the United States wouldn't defend NATO member nations against an attack if those countries had not met defense-spending benchmarks.

In fact, he characterized his approach as “common sense.”

Complicating matters, the president added, in reference to our international NATO partners, “If the United States was in trouble and we called them ... you think they’re going to come and protect us? They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure.”

Whether Trump knows this or not, the only time Article V of the NATO charter was used was after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It was difficult to imagine the Republican finding new ways to make Vladimir Putin’s Russia happy, but this ought to do the trick.