Roger-Luc Chayer (Photo: AFP)
Amid the ongoing turmoil caused by Donald Trump’s absolutely absurd decisions—targeting historical allies such as Canada, Mexico, Panama, and the European Union—one crucial issue has yet to be addressed. This issue could jeopardize the current world order and the military security of our nations: Would President Trump respect Article 5 of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) if a member state were attacked?
What Is NATO?
According to NATO’s official website, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance founded on April 4, 1949, by 12 North American and Western European countries. Its primary objective is to ensure the collective security of its members against external threats, based on Article 5 of its treaty, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
Created in the context of the Cold War to counter Soviet influence, NATO evolved after the fall of the Eastern Bloc by integrating former Warsaw Pact countries and expanding its missions to include peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and cyber threat response. Today, it comprises 32 states, including the United States, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
NATO conducts military and humanitarian operations worldwide and maintains a rapid reaction force. Decisions are made by consensus among member states. Its headquarters is in Brussels, Belgium. Despite its strategic role, the organization faces internal challenges, including tensions between allies and debates over collective defense funding.
What Does Article 5 of the NATO Treaty Mean?
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the cornerstone of the principle of collective defense. It stipulates that an armed attack against one member of the Alliance is considered an attack against all. This means that if a member state is assaulted, others must provide assistance, including military force if necessary.
Adopted in 1949, this article was designed to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western countries during the Cold War. It has been invoked only once, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, prompting NATO allies to support Washington in its fight against terrorism.
However, Article 5 does not automatically mandate military intervention. Each country retains the freedom to determine the nature of its assistance, which may include logistical, financial, or political support. In recent years, debates have arisen about the United States’ commitment to this clause, particularly under the Trump administration.
Article 5 remains a key element of NATO’s deterrence strategy, reinforcing the Alliance’s credibility against potential threats, whether from Russia, terrorism, or cyberattacks.
Would Donald Trump Defend His NATO Allies?
Following major purges in the U.S. civil service, the repeal of all social protections for LGBTQ+ communities, the elimination of protections for Venezuelan and other legally residing refugees in the U.S., financial and political attacks on NATO allies, as well as tariff sanctions against the signatories of the free trade agreement (Canada-U.S.-Mexico), which explicitly prohibits tariffs between member countries—can we truly believe that if a European country were attacked by Russia, or if Canada faced a military invasion on its own territory, President Trump would uphold Article 5 of the NATO charter and come to the defense of his allies?
I firmly believe that Trump would not honor this alliance. The proof lies in the fact that he economically sanctioned his closest allies before imposing any sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
By acting in this manner, President Trump demonstrates that his overall strategy is to establish a dictatorship aligned with rogue states and that his chosen method of global domination is to weaken allied economies—regardless of the consequences for his own nation. Never in its history have the United States been as weak on all fronts, creating a perfect opportunity for foreign powers to seize greater influence in an increasingly unstable and less democratic world.