Trump on collision course with GOP defense hawks over NATO

President Trump is on a collision course with Republican defense hawks over the question of whether the United States should continue its 75-year military leadership of NATO and at what level of commitment.  

Trump has criticized European allies for years for not contributing more to the military alliance, which was set up in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union. During his first term, Trump floated the idea of the United States withdrawing from NATO.

Now the Pentagon is considering an overhaul of the U.S. military’s combatant commands, including one scenario that would have the United States give up its role as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, according to NBC News, which cited defense officials familiar with the planning.

That news was met with a swift rebuke from Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who issued a statement warning that any major changes to combatant commands must be done in coordination with Congress.

“We will not accept significant changes to our warfighting structure that are made without a rigorous interagency process, coordination with combatant commanders and the Joint Staff, and collaboration with Congress,” they declared in a joint statement Wednesday.

Former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who now serves as chair of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, also pushed back against the proposal to give up U.S. military leadership of NATO. 

“Weakening American leadership won’t strengthen NATO or U.S. interests. If we’re serious about encouraging more capable European allies, retreating from our position as the leader of the trans-Atlantic alliance would be an odd way to show it,” he said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

Withdrawing from NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe command structure would signal diminished U.S. involvement in NATO and could eventually spell the end of the alliance as it has been known for 75 years.

It would be politically difficult to place U.S. armed forces under the command of a European ally when United States defense spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all NATO countries’ combined defense spending.

Wicker and Rogers said while they support Trump’s efforts to ensure that European allies increase their contributions to the NATO alliance, they warned against moves that “risk undermining American deterrence around the globe,” which would undercut “our negotiating positions with America’s adversaries.”

Republican senators, including those who disagreed with some of his national security related decisions, including the recent pause in military shipments to Ukraine, have been reluctant to challenge Trump.

Some GOP senators voted to confirm Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence out of deference to Trump, despite strong misgivings with both nominees.

But the prospect of the U.S. giving up military command of NATO is tough for defense hawks to swallow.

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow specializing in U.S. foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, applauded Wicker and Rogers’s statement as “a welcome sign.”

“Congress absolutely has a say in the structure of our command. Congress absolutely has a say in how we resource our defense and our alliances. If the Pentagon isn’t keeping these really important Republican members in the loop, that’s a major problem,” she said.

McConnell called for the United States to increase its defense spending and support for NATO during a press conference Tuesday.

Speaking in Elizabethtown, Ky., he acknowledged his own uncertainty about Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and what it may mean for future U.S. policy.

“I don’t think we know how this headline’s going to turn out until we get through,” he said when asked about Trump and Putin, according to WLEX18, a local news station. “I think we’re all watching the beginning of a rather different kind of administration.”

McConnell cast U.S. global leadership and commitment to NATO as part of a larger struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

“It’s the authoritarians versus the democrats,” he said. “Obviously, the democrats need to be more aggressive. That includes increasing NATO spending more.”

Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton posted on social platform X that it was a Soviet objective during the Cold War to split the United States from its European allies.

“By Trump bringing Russia out of isolation and favoring it over Ukraine, and European NATO members saying they want independence from the U.S., we are heading toward achieving Moscow’s long-standing objective,” Bolton warned.

Some Trump allies are openly calling for the United States to withdraw from NATO, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).

Lee earlier this year called NATO a “great deal for Europe” but a “raw deal for America.”

He renewed his call for the United States to leave the alliance this week after a French politician demanded the return of the Statue of Liberty —  a gift from France in 1889 — from New York Harbor.

The Pentagon’s plans to possibly restructure its combatant commands and the leadership of NATO could come up when the Senate Armed Services Committee meets to vote on Trump’s nomination of Elbridge Colby to serve as undersecretary of Defense for policy.

Republican senators grilled Colby earlier this month about his views on the importance of NATO to U.S. national interests. Colby has in the past advocated for the United States to pivot away from Europe and the Middle East to focus more on national security threats in Asia.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) pressed Colby at his confirmation hearing on whether he still considers NATO an important alliance for the United States.  

“Are you a strong supporter of the NATO alliance?” Sullivan asked. “You still think that’s a useful, important alliance for the United States?”

Colby told the committee: “I do. Again, Senator, I very much believe in NATO, but I believe it has to … adapt.”

Several Republican senators have privately expressed serious concerns with Colby’s nomination, but he appeared to be on a path toward confirmation before senators left Washington for a weeklong recess on March 14.

The news that the Trump administration is considering giving up its role as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe could create new turbulence for the nominee.

First-term Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), who presided over a pro-forma session of the Senate on Thursday, said that “NATO is a very important part of the safety of the whole world.”

“Should the United States still continue to lead NATO and be an integral part and all that kind of stuff? Of course we should,” he said.

But he acknowledged the frustration among many Republicans over allies not contributing more to the defense of Europe.

“We should all be pulling the rope together on an equal basis, or a per capita equal basis,” he said. “When we’re not, it makes it mighty, mighty tough on our country.”