Search Posts

NATO has shaped Europe's security since 1949. But now tension between the U.S. and the rest of the alliance has grown as the Trump administration pushes a NATO 3.0 idea that Europe should take the lead on its own conventional defense. And the Department of War has launched a six-month review that could lead to the biggest U.S. drawdown in Europe since the 1990s. Today we head to Spain, one of the countries that's been a big Trump critic, to take stock of Trump's impact on NATO. To understand the friction between the U.S. and NATO, we travel to the capital of Spain, Madrid... Lost steps because this is the place where... And walk the historic halls of the Senate with Senator Fernando Gutierrez from the Conservative Party. And this is Christopher Columbus who... Gutierrez is a retired general who leads the parliamentary assembly delegation that advises NATO. He agreed to address President Trump's beef with Spain and other NATO allies, which began with Trump demanding they pony up more for their own security. Do you believe that his actions and rhetoric are reasonable or irresponsible? Well, I think his behavior is too aggressive sometimes. And that's what he presents, an aggressive posture. But the principles behind that aggressive posture are understood for everyone. Everyone understands that we have to share our responsibilities. There was an additional rift expressed by President Trump when he felt like he didn't get the support that he wanted with the action involving Iran. How do you view that? Because you are part of NATO, you have to do what I believe you have to do. It's not how NATO work. Here in Spain, U.S. taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into two military bases. But when the U.S. and Israel wanted to use them for refueling and strikes against Iran, Spain said no. President Trump accused Spain of freeloading while the U.S. does the heavy lifting. When the U.S. struck Iran in February with Operation Epic Fury, Spain was one of the strongest opponents. The nation's socialist prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, called the war illegal and unjustified. Spain actually said that we can't use their bases, and that's all right, we could use their bases. We want we could just fly in and use it. Nobody's going to tell us not to use it, but we don't have to. But they were unfriendly. And so I told him that we don't want to -- Spain has absolutely nothing that we need other than great people. They have great people. Trump hasn't limited his criticism to Spain. He's threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO entirely. Look, we went to NATO. I didn't ask very strongly. I just said, hey, if you want to help, great. No, no, no, we will not help. I said, that's all right. You don't want to help? Because I've always said NATO is a paper tiger, because they haven't helped at all. Just the opposite. They've actually gone out of their way not to help. They didn't even want to give us landing strips. In Washington, the United States breaks a 170-year-old tradition as it joins -- The U.S. helped create NATO in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion after World War II. In 2024, full measure got the rare chance to embed in live-fire NATO exercises in northeast Poland. U.S. forces led troops from Britain, Croatia, and Romania. Special Integrat Russia is about 60 kilometers to our north. U.S. withdrawal from NATO would be earth-shattering. It could trigger the collapse of the 77-year-old alliance, weaken Europe's security, and embolden Russia and China. In Spain, we don't agree with a war that doesn't have any support from the United Nations. There are international rules to follow. Vivian Ogou is a left-leaning member of Spanish Parliament. For sure, we don't understand the positions of Trump. Trump is generating diplomatic tensions worldwide, creating -- putting the sanctions. That's not how international community should be working. It's -- the United States is stopping to be a reliable partner and is generating a lot of tensions, economic tensions, political tensions that have an impact on markets, that have an impact on prices, that have an impact in people. President Trump's threats have generated backlash beyond Spain. Member of Parliament Alex Ballinger is a Royal Marine veteran in the U.K. and a member of the Democratic Socialist Labor Party. When looking at NATO and defense when it comes to the United Kingdom, what are your thoughts on President Trump saying something needs to change? I think there has been a bit of concern about Donald Trump's comments about walking away from NATO. Some things he's got right. We do need to invest more in defense, both in this country and in Europe, and countries are now doing that. There is an element of burden-sharing to do, but it is so much in both of our interests that I think there would be an expectation that we're better working together on this stuff rather than dividing ourselves at this very dangerous time. But amid the criticism, NATO Secretary General Mark Ruda has emerged as President Trump's strongest defender, most famously after Trump used an expletive when comparing Israel and Iran to two kids in a schoolyard. Let him fight for about two or three minutes, then it's easier to stop him. And then daddy has to sometimes do strong language to do that stuff. Yeah, he is strong language. Every once in a while you have to use a certain word. After that remark, Ruda's approach with Trump quickly became known as "Daddy diplomacy." There's one point even Trump's critics concede. Only because of his pressure, NATO allies met the target of spending at least two percent of their economy on their own military for the first time last year, and they've committed to five percent by 2035. Because I want to show you what this president was able to achieve. And let's start with this chart. This chart is about the Trump children. The Trump children shows you the increase Europeans and Canadians are paying into defense since you took office in 2017. Most say a full U.S. withdrawal from NATO is unlikely, but War Secretary Pete Hexeth has initiated a review called NATO 3.0. People see it as a threat to reduce or reposition American troops in Europe after the disappointing response on Iran. It will be designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America's global needs, and stepping up to make sure that our access, spacing and overflight are clearly delineated and assured. The impact of President Trump on NATO has been what? Has been demanding, has been just because it was unbalanced, and we have to do more. So you're not mad at him? No. I think most of the negative comments coming to say that NATO is going to be dismantled, that the U.S. is leaving Europe abandoned, are coming from outside the United States. Who do you mean? I think it's coming from the Eastern countries. I think it's coming from Russia. Russia is interested in making the European Union citizens to believe that they are endangered to be abandoned and it's better if they just take the first step. If they are abandoning you, just abandon them. Europe is bolstering its defense spending thanks to Trump. The question is how flashpoints over issues like Iran will impact the long-standing NATO alliance. The Pentagon is expected to recommend what to change about U.S. forces in Europe to President Trump by November 6th, that could include cutting 25,000 troops, roughly a third of the force, or as many as 40,000 with Germany, Italy, and Spain most impacted.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

We just concluded a very successful NATO summit here in Turkey, and I want to thank President Erdogan, who's really a great man, he's a great leader. And I also want to thank NATO Secretary General Mark Wuta. Mark is an extraordinary person, smart, great leader, it's not easy leading so many leaders like that. Over the course of the past two days, I had a number of excellent discussions with other the leaders of the summit and held productive bilateral meetings with President Erdogan of Turkey, as well as President Zelensky and President al-Sharab, Syria, who's doing an unbelievable job in unifying Syria, what a job he's doing. In every conversation, it was clear that America is back and we're stronger, bigger, and better than ever before. This was a tremendously successful summit. I just want to say there was tremendous love in that room. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

President Trump got the 5% last year in the Hague which powers us forward. He said you did it sir, you did it. I don't know of any American president in the modern era who could have made this possible. And what we accomplished last year in the Hague now has to turn into real capabilities. The United States is leading the way and we expect others to follow us and follow our lead. And no other president is going to do what I'm doing. Ultimately the summit for NATO is going to be the first report card after last year's meeting in the Hague. The United States will be here but we also need our allies to be here. We cannot do it alone and the American taxpayer should no longer bear the burden. You're watching history, so buckle up.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Green met CEO Drew horn joins me now. Judy heard the president there What do you think he means when he says quote that's gonna be a big problem for him meaning the premiere of Greenland? Well, thanks for having me. I guess I would say I think it's a big problem on multiple fronts Mainly because his own people have made it quite clear in Greenland that they want support from the United States There is no NATO. There is no Greenlandic security without the United States We're already providing not only the security of Greenland, but essentially Denmark's the entire European security It's ridiculous for him to talk about how he's gonna have to choose between the two and he's not speaking with consent of his own Constituents when making these kinds of ridiculous statements So I think president Trump is absolutely right to call him on that ridiculous statement as we wait to see what comes out of this meeting Between Vance Rubio Greenland and Denmark. Is there a sweet spot here? Drew where everyone gets what they want everyone gets what they need and quite frankly everyone gets to see face and if so drew What is that sweet spot? There absolutely is a sweet spot and you know I think that there's just a lot of you know, ridiculous narrative coming from the Europeans on this particular subject what president Trump is offering is billions of dollars of investment in the form of private investments and projects all of which we're looking at that span from a I data centers to multiple rare earth and critical minerals projects I mean the sky is the limit and everybody benefits from this including the Danes including the EU including NATO But most importantly the Greenlanders who have overwhelmingly said they want investment and support from the United States They want a pathway towards independence and they are absolutely tired of being exploited and oppressed by the Danes as they have been for the last Hundred years, you know, the era of colonialism is over and it's time to let people achieve their own destiny No one is going to stand in the way of the Greenlanders achieving the goal that they want and they need the United States for that Yeah to that point What do you make of this idea of increasing NATO's presence in Greenland to counteract the threat of China and Russia? Is that enough should that be enough for the United States in light of the fact that Trump has said his concern with Greenland is Chinese and Russian investment taking over whatever or is this really about the minerals and the mineral rights and being able to Unlock what Greenland has to offer to help us economically as well Well, there's obviously a joint nexus between national security and economic development I mean looking at this from the president's perspective My opinion is he realizes that you need to do both and so the reality is NATO is not able to protect itself without the United States I think we need to stop pretending that there's some sort of world in which NATO exists without the United States We've been propping it up for years and years and years and obviously the European members need to do more of a part To contribute and pull their weight so they do need to contribute more towards the collective Arctic security Obviously the United States is as it has been going to continue to be the primary contributor and protector there But at the same time collectively we need to look at investment and growth across the board that allows us to pair that with that national Security, it's overwhelmingly what the Greenlanders want. It's what the United States wants It's you know in private conversations with the Danes and the EU wants Let's just stop playing games and pretend in here and let the United States bring these options that everybody wants and we all will benefit From him drew horn with very pointed insight on Greenland. We appreciate your time this morning. Very interesting. Thanks so much for having me

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.