President Donald Trump is understandably frustrated with America’s European allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He repeatedly criticized NATO during his first term, primarily over the failure of most of its members to meet their defense spending obligations. Now, it’s because of foot-dragging and obstruction over Iran.

Thanks in large part to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which proved Trump’s criticism correct, NATO members have sought to meet and expand their defense spending obligations. Yet leading NATO members continue to bristle at Trump, even though his actions are in their own best interests.

The latest example of NATO’s obstinacy has come from a number of member nations, including France, Italy, and Spain, by way of objections to the joint U.S.-Israel operation against Iran. Rather than recognizing the legitimate and imminent nature of the threat that the Islamic Republic poses to not only the Middle East but globally, these NATO members have pointed the finger of blame at Trump and Israel.

Spain has barred U.S. bases in its territory from being used to transport supplies and troops bound for Operation Epic Fury. France wouldn’t even let the U.S. use its airspace, to which Trump responded on Truth Social, “The Country of France wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the ‘Butcher of Iran,’ who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!!”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also expressed his frustration regarding America’s supposed allies in NATO, saying, “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement.” Indeed.

The Strait of Hormuz is essentially closed due to Tehran’s continued willingness to attack civilian shipping. This has caused global energy prices to jump, putting downward pressure on economies worldwide, especially in Europe. NATO’s unwillingness to assist the U.S. in reopening and defending the Strait is telling.

Thus, when Trump was recently asked if he would reconsider U.S. membership in NATO following the Iran operation, his answer was unequivocal: “Oh yes, I would say beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

And Trump is right: NATO’s power is almost entirely dependent on the U.S.

NATO was born during an era when Europe was struggling to rebuild from the devastation of World War II and was facing the growing communist threat from the Stalin-led Soviet Union. It made sense for the U.S., the world’s new superpower, which had come to Europe’s aid in defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan and was lending significant economic aid, to also seek a means to counter the suddenly nuclear-armed Soviet Union. That came in the form of a military alliance of Western European nations, backed by the economic and military might of the U.S.

NATO protects Western Europe and benefits the U.S. by bolstering our national defense and expanding our military presence through numerous bases in NATO member states. These, of course, allow the U.S. military to respond rapidly to sudden threats raised against our allies and interests across Europe and beyond.

While NATO nations sought to cover some of their own defense costs, the true strength of NATO lies in the U.S. military. American taxpayers have long footed the bill for NATO, doing so not only for Europe’s benefit but also for our own.

The trouble is that, following the end of the Cold War, many NATO nations have effectively viewed investment in their own military security as nonessential and instead invested heavily in building welfare states. In doing so, most failed to meet their military spending obligations, an issue Trump addressed during his first term.

However, even as NATO has expanded over the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has, ironically, also lost respect for and appreciation of the one superpower that has upheld and ensured the alliance’s enduring strength since its founding. If the U.S. had never proposed and invested in NATO, would Western Europeans be speaking Russian today?

Therefore, given this latest obstinacy from America’s supposed NATO allies, a reevaluation of the U.S.‘s membership in the alliance is entirely reasonable and necessary. What good is it for the U.S. to have military bases within NATO countries if we are not permitted to use them for our own military interests? As Secretary of War Pete Hegseth observed, “You don’t have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them.”

The question of whether Trump would have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NATO is not really the issue. That can be debated, and any action he takes would obviously be challenged. The point is that Trump is effectively sending a message to NATO nations: If they refuse to act like allies, then they shouldn’t look to the U.S. to have their backs should Russia or some other unforeseen enemy come knocking.