Donald Trump Is Not Forgetting America’s Old Alliances – His Goal Is to Destroy Them

In the realm of global diplomacy, alliances are often the linchpins of stability, trust, and collective security. For decades, the United States has maintained a network of alliances—ranging from NATO in Europe to security partnerships in Asia—that have shaped international relations and bolstered U.S. influence worldwide. Yet, under the leadership of former President Donald Trump, critics argue that these long-standing alliances are under unprecedented strain. Far from maintaining them, Trump’s policies and rhetoric suggest a deliberate approach aimed at undermining, weakening, or even destroying America’s old alliances.

A New Approach to Old Alliances

Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been defined by a transactional worldview. While previous administrations emphasized multilateral cooperation, shared commitments, and the strategic value of enduring alliances, Trump has framed alliances in terms of immediate financial gain and national self-interest. His repeated criticism of NATO, threats to withdraw from traditional commitments, and insistence that allies pay “their fair share” are emblematic of a strategy that prioritizes short-term leverage over long-term stability.

For example, Trump repeatedly argued that European allies were not contributing enough to NATO, suggesting that the U.S. should reduce its support or even withdraw entirely if payments were deemed insufficient. While some analysts view this as a negotiation tactic, the broader impact has been to sow doubt among allies about America’s reliability, a foundational principle of global security.

Undermining Transatlantic Relations

Europe has long been the cornerstone of U.S. alliance strategy. NATO, forged in the aftermath of World War II, represents both a military commitment and a political promise: that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Trump’s public rhetoric has often been critical of NATO members, labeling the alliance “obsolete” and questioning U.S. engagement in collective defense.

This approach has consequences beyond words. European leaders, facing uncertainty about U.S. support, have begun reassessing their defense strategies and seeking autonomy, from boosting military spending to engaging with nontraditional partners. In effect, what may have been intended as leverage has weakened long-standing relationships that were once central to American influence in Europe.

Asia and the Indo-Pacific: A Risky Redefinition

Trump’s approach is not limited to Europe. In Asia, his transactional policies have strained relationships with Japan, South Korea, and other U.S. allies. By emphasizing burden-sharing and bilateral economic leverage, he has disrupted the strategic cohesion that underpins U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific region. While previous administrations cultivated a web of alliances to counterbalance rising powers like China, Trump’s policies risk eroding the credibility of these partnerships.

For example, the renegotiation of trade deals, pressure on allies to increase defense spending, and questioning the value of multilateral agreements have left partner nations questioning whether the U.S. remains a predictable and reliable actor. The result is a fragmented alliance network, where traditional allies may hedge their positions or pursue independent policies.

The Middle East: Dividing Old Partnerships

In the Middle East, Trump’s policies further illustrate the potential for alliance disruption. His approach to long-standing partnerships, including those with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Gulf states, has often emphasized unilateral action and transactional deals. While some initiatives—such as normalization agreements between Israel and certain Arab nations—have been framed as diplomatic successes, critics argue they come at the expense of long-term alliance cohesion. By prioritizing immediate gains over enduring commitments, Trump’s strategy has reshaped old alliances into short-term arrangements, weakening the institutional trust that underpins regional stability.

Motivations Behind the Strategy

Why would Trump appear to undermine alliances that have historically benefited the United States? Several motivations emerge:

1. Transactional Leverage: Trump views alliances primarily as bargaining chips to extract concessions, payments, or trade advantages from partners.

2. America First Doctrine: A core principle of his presidency is prioritizing domestic interests over international commitments, even at the cost of weakening alliances.

3. Rethinking Global Costs: Long-term engagement, according to Trump, is expensive, and he has consistently argued that allies should shoulder more of the financial and military burden.

While these motivations appeal to certain domestic constituencies, they risk eroding the strategic advantages that decades of alliances have provided, leaving the U.S. more isolated in a rapidly shifting global order.

Consequences for Global Security

The potential destruction of old alliances carries serious consequences. Weakening NATO or undermining Asian partnerships could embolden adversaries, including Russia and China, to challenge U.S. interests more aggressively. It could also encourage smaller states to pursue independent security arrangements or align with rival powers, further fragmenting the international system.

Alliances are more than symbolic; they are instruments of deterrence, trust, and coordinated action. Eroding them risks not only diplomatic isolation but also tangible security vulnerabilities.

Looking Ahead

As the global order evolves, the approach of prioritizing transactional gains over long-term alliances may leave lasting scars. While Trump’s strategy may appear effective in the short term, its cumulative impact could reshape global power balances, diminish American influence, and invite instability in regions historically anchored by U.S. commitments.

The challenge for policymakers, allies, and analysts is to navigate a post-Trump world where old alliances are questioned, trust is frayed, and the foundational principles of collective security are under unprecedented stress. The task is not only to repair damaged relationships but also to rebuild credibility and reaffirm commitments that have long underpinned international stability.

Conclusion

Donald Trump is not merely challenging America’s old alliances—he is actively reshaping them in ways that could undermine decades of diplomatic and security achievements. By emphasizing short-term gains, transactional leverage, and unilateral action, he has threatened the cohesion of global partnerships. For the United States and its allies, the question now is how to respond: whether to rebuild trust, adapt to a more transactional reality, or risk a world where old alliances—once pillars of stability—are diminished or destroyed.