EDITOR'S CORNER: Can We Really Trust the U.S. Under Trump?

The title may sound controversial, but it raises a critical question: How much can we truly trust the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership? This question is especially important given that much of the Western world order still revolves around America’s actions, influence, and alliances.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has been Europe’s most important ally. But with Trump’s return to the political spotlight—and potentially to the presidency—it’s worth asking: Will America remain a reliable partner?

In this blog post, I want to explore just how much Europe can depend on Trump’s America, and why many European leaders seem to be courting his favor. Is this diplomatic outreach necessary, or is it a dangerous gamble?

WAS THE IRAN STRIKE JUSTIFIED? 

The first reason I question whether we can truly trust Trump is how he publicly dismissed Tulsi Gabbard when she expressed doubts about Iran’s proximity to developing a nuclear bomb. Gabbard argued, based on available intelligence, that Iran was still years away from achieving a nuclear weapon. Yet when reporters pressed Trump on this discrepancy—between his claim that Iran was close to building the bomb and the intelligence community’s more cautious assessment—Trump outright rejected her, saying, "She’s wrong!" and "I don’t care what she says."

This kind of open contradiction with his own intelligence agencies is highly unusual for a president. It raises serious doubts about his willingness to rely on facts and expert analysis rather than political convenience. Faced with intense pressure, Gabbard eventually reversed her position, conceding that Iran was indeed close to acquiring nuclear weapons—a change that many saw as a reluctant capitulation rather than a genuine shift in her assessment.

Beyond this episode, there’s a deeper question about whether the U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was truly justified based on reliable intelligence, or whether the administration manipulated or overstated the facts to rationalize a predetermined military action. The growing discrepancies and contradictory statements suggest that truth may have been sacrificed to serve political objectives.

REAFFIRMATION OF NATO'S ARTICLE FIVE 

This week, on Tuesday, NATO held its summit in The Hague, Netherlands. By most accounts, it was a significant success—though the meeting was notably shortened to just a few hours, reportedly to accommodate President Trump’s famously limited attention span. At his request, several important topics, including Ukraine, were deliberately left off the agenda, raising eyebrows among many observers.

Despite the abbreviated schedule and omissions, the leaders managed to reach a historic agreement on a new defense spending target, as we discussed in the previous post. NATO members will now aim to collectively spend 5% of their GDP on defense, split into 3.5% for direct military spending and 1.5% earmarked for broader defense infrastructure projects. However, not all countries are on board with this level of commitment—Spain, for example, has already requested an exemption, citing economic constraints.

In addition to this unprecedented financial commitment, all NATO leaders, including Trump, publicly reaffirmed their commitment to Article 5—the cornerstone of the alliance which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. While Trump’s endorsement was somewhat surprising, it begs the question: how genuine is this commitment? Trump’s track record is marked by overinflated promises and an "America First" policy that leans toward isolationism. His administration’s penchant for imposing tariffs has also hurt local markets, suggesting a more insular and inward-looking U.S. stance that could challenge the traditional spirit of transatlantic cooperation.

Perhaps nothing captured the surreal nature of this new dynamic more than NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s interactions with Trump—both public and private. During a press conference, Rutte made headlines by joking that “Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop,” after Trump used schoolyard metaphors to describe the Iran–Israel conflict. The comment, which Rutte later said was meant affectionately and metaphorically, played directly into Trump’s cultivated image as the tough, paternal enforcer of global order. 

The dynamic was further underscored by a leaked text message from Rutte to Trump in which he lavished praise on the president’s "decisive" actions and promised that "Europe will pay in a BIG way." It’s almost absurd to see Rutte—typically a no-nonsense, pragmatic leader—fawning over Trump like a sycophant. The tone felt more like a fan letter than a diplomatic message. And yet, it’s a necessary absurdity. Trump’s leadership thrives on loyalty and personal flattery; if maintaining the transatlantic alliance now requires indulging his ego, then even seasoned leaders like Rutte appear willing to play along.

CONCLUSION

In light of these events, Europe’s ability to rely on the United States—especially under Trump—looks increasingly fragile. Reaffirming Article 5 means little when paired with erratic behavior and ego-driven decisions. Trump’s rejection of intelligence briefings, his shallow engagement at the NATO summit, and Rutte’s bizarre "Daddy" remark all reflect an alliance struggling to accommodate a leader more concerned with image than strategy. The leaked text from Rutte, full of flattery, only shows how much diplomacy has shifted toward ego management over substance.

For Europe, the choice is urgent. If Trump’s America picks and chooses its commitments, Europe must stop hoping for stability and start building it. Strategic independence—militarily and diplomatically—can no longer wait. NATO’s future may well depend on Europe’s willingness to adapt, not appease.