NATO,North Atlantic Treaty Organization has had divisions but none like this. President Donald Trump has pitched the alliance into what some analysts call its worst crisis yet, escalating his bid to acquire Greenland and threatening new tariffs against allies that oppose him. Trump’s tariff threat risks an existential breach with allies, raising fears of a fracture within the alliance that has underpinned global security for decades.
European Union ambassadors held emergency consultations in Brussels on Sunday, and several leaders of NATO allies who are friendly with Trump called to express resolve over Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory. There is palpable alarm on both sides of the Atlantic that NATO could collapse. Such a previously unthinkable scenario would represent a historic win for Russia and China and perhaps the most destabilizing outcome of Trump’s two White House terms.
In Washington, Republicans in Congress hold the most immediate power to restrain Trump. Lawmakers could block tariff measures or limit executive authority, but doing so would require breaking with a president who dominates their party. Their response may determine whether NATO’s credibility survives intact. There is concern in Congress about Trump’s antics, but the question remains whether there are sufficient senior Republicans so protective of NATO, a bedrock of U.S. global power, that they would gamble on an exceedingly rare breach with him. Cracks have emerged in Trump’s power base in Congress notably over the Jeffrey Epstein files — but he remains feared by many GOP lawmakers.
Greenland, an autonomous territory, has firmly opposed Trump’s ambitions. Its stance has become a rallying point for NATO allies, highlighting questions about sovereignty and whether smaller nations can rely on the alliance when challenged by its leading member.
Any European response carries risks. Trade measures could hurt both sides, while limiting military cooperation could weaken NATO’s deterrence against Russia and China. Both rivals are watching closely for cracks in transatlantic unity.
Ultimately, however, the fate of the alliance rests on a president who sees U.S. military power as his to wield without legal or constitutional constraints and who disdains NATO as a protection racket. Acquiring Greenland would be a legacy item greater than putting his name on the Kennedy Center or building a new White House ballroom. It would place him alongside Thomas Jefferson and William McKinley as presidents who expanded the territory of the United States.
NATO’s survival may depend on whether Republicans in Congress act to restrain Trump and whether European leaders sustain unity without inflicting self-harm. Denmark and Greenland remain central to the dispute, but the alliance’s credibility rests on collective action. Failure to resist Trump’s escalation could mark NATO’s gravest crisis since its founding.
