Saturday | 24th January 2026
US President Donald Trump has once again cast doubt on the reliability of America’s NATO allies, questioning whether they would come to the United States’ aid in a moment of crisis and dismissing their battlefield contributions during the war in Afghanistan. His remarks, delivered during a Fox News interview in Davos, Switzerland, revived long-standing tensions between Washington and its transatlantic partners and prompted swift backlash from allied leaders.
“I’ve always said, ‘Will they be there, if we ever needed them?’ And that’s really the ultimate test. And I’m not sure of that,” Trump said Thursday. “I know that we would have been there, or we would be there, but will they be there?”
Trump went further, asserting — without evidence — that NATO allies deliberately kept their troops away from danger during the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan. “They’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did — they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines,” he claimed.
Those comments cut directly against the historical record. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States became the first and, to date, only NATO member to invoke Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty — the collective defense clause stating that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. In response, NATO allies and partner nations deployed tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan, fighting and dying alongside US forces for two decades.
While the United States suffered the highest number of casualties in absolute terms, allied losses were significant, particularly when measured against population size. Roughly 3,500 allied troops were killed during the conflict, including 2,456 Americans and 457 British service members. Denmark, whose population was about 5 million at the start of the war, lost more than 40 troops — one of the highest per-capita death rates among coalition countries.
Some of the heaviest fighting occurred in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold and hub of opium production in southern Afghanistan. The initial NATO force deployed there consisted largely of British and Danish troops, who bore the brunt of the casualties before the US surged additional forces into the region in 2008. Britain and Denmark sustained most of their losses during these operations.
Trump’s remarks have angered NATO allies, coming at the end of a week in which he had already strained relations by repeatedly threatening to seize control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark and a fellow NATO member. European officials privately and publicly expressed concern that Trump’s rhetoric undermines alliance cohesion at a time of heightened global instability.
On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a sharp rebuke, calling Trump’s comments “insulting and frankly appalling” and suggesting the president should apologize.
“I’m not surprised they’ve caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured,” Starmer said. “If I had misspoken in that way or said those words, I would certainly apologize.”
The White House dismissed Starmer’s criticism and doubled down on Trump’s position. “President Trump is absolutely right — the United States of America has done more for NATO than any other country in the alliance has done combined,” said White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers, emphasizing the disproportionate share of military resources and funding provided by the US.
The controversy also drew comments from Prince Harry, who served two tours in Afghanistan as a British Army officer. In a statement released through his spokesperson, he stressed the importance of honoring allied sacrifices. “Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace,” he said.
Trump has repeatedly raised doubts about NATO’s commitment since the beginning of the year. “I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” he wrote on Truth Social on January 7. “We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us.”
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has publicly pushed back on that narrative. Speaking alongside Trump in Davos earlier this week, Rutte directly addressed the president’s skepticism.
“There was one thing I heard you say yesterday and today — you were not absolutely sure that Europeans would come to the rescue of the US if you will be attacked,” Rutte said. “Let me tell you — they will. And they did in Afghanistan.”
Rutte underscored the scale of allied losses. “For every two Americans who paid the ultimate price, there was one soldier from another NATO country that did not come back to his family,” he said. “This is important. It pains me if you think it is not.”
In the UK, outrage over Trump’s comments crossed party lines. Defense Secretary John Healey noted that Article 5 had been triggered only once — by the United States — and that Britain and other allies responded without hesitation. “More than 450 British personnel lost their lives in Afghanistan,” Healey said. “Those British troops should be remembered for who they were: heroes who gave their lives in service of our nation.”
Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, called Trump’s remarks an “absolute insult,” while Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed them as “flat-out nonsense,” saying allied sacrifices “deserve respect, not denigration.”
Trump’s comments echo similar dismissive statements from members of his administration. In June, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recalled that US troops in Afghanistan sometimes joked that the ISAF acronym — International Security Assistance Force — stood for “I Saw Americans Fighting.”
“What ultimately was a lot of flags … was not a lot of on-the-ground capability,” Hegseth said at the time, a remark that also drew criticism from allied militaries.
Taken together, the comments have reinforced European concerns that Trump views NATO less as a collective security alliance and more as a transactional arrangement — a stance that critics argue risks eroding trust built on decades of shared sacrifice.