Trump Weighs Consequences For Nato Allies On 'naughty' List

The White House has developed something akin to a “naughty and nice” list of NATO countries, as the Trump administration looks for ways to punish allies who refused to back the Iran war.

The effort, which officials worked on ahead of NATO head Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington this month, includes an overview of members’ contributions to the alliance and places them into tiers, according to three European diplomats and a U.S. defense official familiar with the plan.

It’s the latest sign that President Donald Trump plans to make good on his threats against allies who don’t adhere to his wishes. And it’s another pressure point on the increasingly frayed alliance, which has been battered by Trump’s attacks — from his push to annex Greenland to his warning of a complete withdrawal from the pact.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth floated the broad idea in December. “Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor," he said. "Allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences."

One of the diplomats said the list appeared to reflect that concept. “The White House has a naughty and nice paper so I guess the thinking is similar,” the person said.

The administration is keeping any details quiet as it plans options, according to the people. And officials have provided little clarity on what the favors or consequences might be.

“They don’t seem to have very concrete ideas…when it comes to punishing bad allies,” said another European official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues. “Moving troops is one option, but it mainly punishes the U.S. doesn’t it?”

The White House made its frustration with allies clear. “While the United States has always been there for our so-called allies, countries we protect with thousands of troops have not been there for us throughout Operation Epic Fury," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, referring to the Pentagon’s name for the operation. “President Trump has made his thoughts on this unfair dynamic clear, and as he said, the United States will remember.”

NATO did not respond to a request for comment.

Few other alternatives exist for moving American troops out of Europe, so any potential plan would likely involve relocating them from one country to another. Even then, a shift could prove expensive and time consuming.

It’s not clear which countries fit into which category or if Rutte knows about the effort. But the Romanians and Poles could end up being some of the biggest beneficiaries, since both remain in the president’s good graces and would welcome more U.S. troops. The Polish government, which is one of NATO biggest defense spenders, already pays almost all of the costs to host the 10,000 American troops stationed there. And Romania’s recently expanded Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base — which the country allowed the U.S. to use for the air war in Iran — has room for more American troops.

Hegseth initially used the model ally rhetoric to refer to NATO partners who had increased defense spending in line with the alliance’s 5 percent targets championed by Trump. Officials also referenced itin the National Defense Strategy released in January.

The Defense Department “will prioritize cooperation and engagements with model allies who are doing their part for our collective defense," the Pentagon said in a statement. “In doing so, we will empower those allies as they step up in the defense of our shared interests while also strengthening incentives for other allies to do their part.”

The concept could give the U.S. options to pull back troop deployments, joint exercises, or military sales from perceived “bad” allies and give them to “good” ones, according to two of the European officials familiar with the plan. Hegseth has also used the term “model ally” in meetings with NATO members, according to the third diplomat.

And it would offer Trump more tools to differentiate between members who supported U.S. efforts in Iran — such as ending Tehran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and allowing base use — from those who didn’t.

While Spain and allies such as the U.K. and France either rejected or stalled U.S. requests for help, Romania and several smaller nations allowed the U.S. to use their air bases. Bulgaria also quietly supported American logistics in the Middle East.

Spain was already in troublewith the Trump administration for pushing back on NATO’s 5 percent defense spending target at the alliance’s Hague summit last year. Officials, though, have praised Baltic nations such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland for consistently ranking at the top of the bloc in military spending.

“President Trump has rightly made clear that he expects allies and partners to step up and help secure this vital waterway in the Middle East,” Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby told NATO allies this month during a virtual meeting of defense ministers that Hegseth declined to attend.

But there is little precedent for taking such steps to punish allies, and such notions already face push back on Capitol Hill.

“It is not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Tuesday before a hearingon U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region. “We must be clear about the numerous political, strategic and moral benefits that country receives from its alliances.”

And some former officials doubt the Trump administration has the bandwidth to manage another existential crisis to the alliance.

“Trump and his team are busy trying to extract themselves from their self-inflicted quagmire,” said Joel Linnainmäki, a former Finnish official who worked on the country’s 2023 accession into NATO. “Likely the administration does not have the bandwidth to open another hostile front with Europe as long as the war continues.”

Leo Shane III contributed to this report.