Karoline Leavitt told the White House press corp that NATO was “tested and failed.” She further stated that Trump would be discussing with the NATO secretary general the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO.

Trump, in all caps as is his way, issued yet again his grievance that the NATO allies didn’t come running to back him up when he, without having gotten their prior approval or commitment, decided to attack Iran and after his denigrating, mocking, tariffing and challenging our former friends, demanded they come to his aid.

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!” – President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/xgEV8P1n4n

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 8, 2026

Curiously, Vice President J.D. Vance was in Hungary at the time, stumping for the re-election of Viktor Orban, Russia’s favorite son.

The United States cannot technically withdraw from NATO except by act of Congress. Treaties are law, and cannot lawfully be undone by presidential decree (or twit, as the case may be), in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act. But like so many things “law,” its relevance is contingent on two inter-related pieces, the president’s willingness to abide by the law and the military’s willingness to abide by the orders of the commander-in-chief.

If a NATO nation invokes Article 5, requiring the other nations committed to the mutual defense of NATO nations, will the president comply? And if the president, as CIC, orders the military to stand down, if not serve the other side, will the military do as ordered? It’s hard to imagine the military doing otherwise, as it has no independent role to play under the treaty, but it presumes that the president’s orders will not violate the law by refusing to adhere to the duties imposed by the treaty.

Clearly, Trump fails to grasp either the purpose of NATO or the responsibilities it imposes on its member nations, the United States included. America is the big Kahuna of NATO, and it was always understood that we were the most powerful member with the most powerful army, thus serving as the bulwark against aggression against smaller and more vulnerable NATO members. It was this realization that served to keep world peace since its inception in 1949, as an attack on Poland was an attack on the United States. While the Soviet Union might not consider Poland a serious adversary, surely it would deem America a deterrence.

What NATO is not is a group of subservient states to the will of  Trump, obliged to do as he commands and come running whenever he calls. Trump’s decision to attack Iran, regardless of whether it was a good or bad decision, did not invoke any aspect of the NATO treaty. But that didn’t stop Trump from assuming that, if they’re are “friends” to be there whenever we needed them, they would nonetheless come to our aid.

And indeed, they might have, if only Trump hadn’t spent so much effort offending our NATO allies, suggesting he would violate the treaty by seizing Greenland by force, failing to obtain their cooperation before deciding to attack and create a war that would drag in a significant part of the world without its consent and demanding these nations put their own military, their own citizens, at risk to soothe Trump’s vanity.

That there is a discussion being had about the United States withdrawing from NATO would have been, in itself, unthinkable before Trump. At this point, it’s almost impossible for NATO allies to repose trust and faith that the alliance will hold should a member nation be attacked. Trump has given our NATO allies every reason to believe that he will either refuse to come to their aid should Article 5 be invoked, or extort some sort of giveback, say Greenland, in exchange for his honoring the United States’ commitment to NATO.

Much as the existence of NATO remains on the books, and will do so regardless of what Trump has to say about it, there can be no faith that NATO will function as intended and required by its mutual commitments. Perhaps the United States will step up should Russia attack Poland and fulfill its treaty responsibilities. But if you were a NATO nation, would you bet your life on it?