While addressing the nation in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to raise anew the clouds of skepticism over the basic beliefs that formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding defense cooperation agreements, rhetorically inquiring if in case of crisis, U.S. allies will be willing to help their ally. Mr. Trump stated that NATO allies never gave full support in the Afghan crisis, commenting that this did not quite sound good in terms of military data.
His remarks, in particular, provoked controversy in a chat with a Fox News interviewer, rekindling old rivalries at a time when there are existing tensions in Europe and America over issues including Greenland, spending, and America’s role in world politics.
Questioning Article 5: A Claim at Odds With NATO’s Record
Trump’s skepticism cuts to the heart of NATO’s founding principle: Article 5, which declares that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Importantly, Article 5 has only been invoked once in NATO’s 76-year history-after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.
In response, tens of thousands of NATO allies surged into Afghanistan, where they fought for two decades under the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force and later under the Resolute Support Mission. Trump’s claim that these allies “stayed a little back” contradicts the operational reality of the war.
At its height in 2011, ISAF comprised more than 130,000 troops, of which close to 40% were non-American, from more than 50 NATO and partner nations.
Casualties Tell a Different Story Than Trump’s Narrative
While the United States suffered the highest absolute number of casualties, allied losses were substantial—especially when measured relative to population size.
- Total NATO and partner fatalities: ~3,500
- U.S. fatalities: 2,456
- British fatalities: 457
- Canadian fatalities: 158
- Danish fatalities: 43
Data from the number of casualties sustained by the Danish forces is particularly revealing, given that the country had only 5 million people on its rolls when it was deployed and yet had some of the highest per capita casualty rates among all the other member countries, including America, in the alliance. It is to be noted that the British and Danish forces had been at the forefront in Helmand province, one of the bloodiest Taliban zones, much before any other reinforcement troops arrived in 2008.
Helmand Province: Where Allies Fought and Died
British and Danish troops were introduced in the area as far back as 2006. These troops were sent to the area that is known for high levels of insurgents’ activities and the production of opium poppy. There were quick casualties because the NATO alliance was unable to provide stability in the area with the few troops that were deployed.
Only later did the U.S. deploy tens of thousands of soldiers in south Afghanistan. At that time, Europe had been through years of combat-related casualties—an inconvenient piece of information that Trump did not mention.
Thus, the reality was emphasized by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the just-held event at Davos. He said for every two soldiers killed in America, an allied soldier was also killed. His comments also underscore the political and emotional costs of dismissing the sacrifices of the allies.
Why Trump Keeps Returning to This Argument
Trump’s rhetoric fits a broader pattern: framing alliances as transactional arrangements where U.S. contributions outweigh any return. His administration frequently cites defense spending disparities—particularly Europe’s failure to meet NATO’s 2% of GDP defense benchmark.
The problem is that spending and sacrifices are not equivalent measures. The same nations in Europe—UK, Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands—consistently deployed combat forces and special forces/intelligence expertise at great political cost to their citizens in their home countries while fighting alongside the US forces.
The Strategic Damage of Public Doubts
Publicly questioning whether NATO would defend the United States has consequences beyond hurt feelings.
- Deterrence erosion: Adversaries may interpret Trump’s statements as evidence of alliance fragility.
- Alliance cohesion: Smaller NATO states—especially in Eastern Europe—depend on U.S. reassurance to deter Russia.
- Operational trust: Military cooperation relies on political confidence that commitments will be honored.
This damage comes at a time when NATO faces renewed pressure from Russia’s war in Ukraine and uncertainty about U.S. long-term leadership.
Allied Backlash: Political and Moral Anger
The reaction in the UK was swift and bipartisan. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Trump’s remarks “insulting and frankly appalling,” emphasizing the emotional toll on families of fallen soldiers. Defense Secretary John Healey reminded audiences that more than 450 British personnel died answering America’s call.
Even figures outside politics weighed in. Prince Harry, who served two tours in Afghanistan, stressed that NATO sacrifices must be spoken about “truthfully and with respect.”
A Pattern Within the Trump Administration
Trump is not alone in minimizing allied contributions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously mocked NATO forces, claiming ISAF stood for “I Saw Americans Fighting.” Such remarks reflect a broader narrative within parts of the administration that equates military value solely with scale and spending, not mission risk or strategic impact.
This framing ignores the political reality that many European governments paid heavy domestic costs for supporting U.S. wars—costs that continue to shape their foreign policy debates today.
The Larger Question: Is the U.S. Rewriting the Alliance Contract?
Trump’s repeated doubts raise a deeper issue: Is the United States redefining what alliance loyalty means?
If contributions are judged only by financial outlays or absolute troop numbers, smaller allies will always fall short. But NATO was never designed as a balance sheet—it was built as a political and military commitment rooted in shared risk.
Undermining that principle risks turning NATO from a collective defense alliance into a loose coalition of convenience—precisely the outcome America’s adversaries would welcome.
Trump’s claims about Afghanistan are not merely inaccurate; they distort a defining chapter in NATO’s history. For 20 years, allied soldiers fought, bled, and died alongside Americans—often in some of the war’s most dangerous regions.
Questioning whether NATO would stand with the U.S. ignores the one moment when the alliance was tested—and passed. In an era of rising global instability, rewriting that history may prove far more costly than acknowledging it.
