In March 2025 President Donald Trump delivered a message that sent shivers through European capitals: “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.” The comment, aimed squarely at NATO, was a warning shot not just to NATO itself but to all US allies that partnership with the US implies a new calculus. With the threats of kicking off an economic war now fulfilled—not just on strategic foes but longstanding allies as well—the Trump administration has repositioned the US for fresh negotiations across the board: on defence, trade, immigration, strategic cooperation, and the very meaning of alliance.
In Trump’s first 100 days, the message to America’s allies has been unmistakable: partnership comes with a price tag. The era of automatic solidarity is over; in its place stands a foreign policy shaped by cost-benefit analysis and hard-ball negotiation.
Redrawing the Map
Most notably, Trump has challenged the cohesion of NATO. His comments in March called into question the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance’s mutual defense clause, suggesting that American military support depends on whether allies meet their defense spending obligations. Behind the scenes, administration officials have explored options to redeploy troops to countries more aligned with Trump’s strategic goals, further fraying the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance. While previous administrations sought to preserve and strengthen transatlantic ties, Trump’s rhetoric and divergent policy positions have sown uncertainty among long-standing European partners.
Relations with neighbouring allies have also been destabilised. North of the US border, tensions with Canada have escalated sharply. In early 2025, the Trump administration slapped a 25% tariff on Canadian aluminum and steel, citing national security. The move reignited trade disputes and prompted Canadian policymakers to push for greater economic independence from the US. More provocatively, Trump’s offhand remarks about annexing Canada as a “51st state” were met with condemnation from Canadian officials, who characterised the rhetoric as a threat to national sovereignty.




