Trump's Nato Nominee Commits To Alliance, Despite Maga Opponents

President Trump’s nominee for ambassador to NATO expressed a commitment to the alliance during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, despite Trump allies — including Elon Musk — calling for a U.S. withdrawal.

Matthew Whitaker, who served as acting attorney general during Trump’s first term, said if he is confirmed as ambassador to NATO, he would push allies to increase their defense spending and convene the alliance to address a multitude of threats.

“President Trump has been clear, the United States remains committed to NATO and to the principle of peace through strength,” Whitaker said in opening remarks. 

His statements come as Musk, to whom Trump gave wide authority to cut federal spending and push out federal workers, has called for the U.S. to leave NATO. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), another Trump ally, introduced legislation last year to force the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. On Sunday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, posted on the social media site X, “Get us out of NATO."

Trump has long denigrated NATO, and officials who served in his first term said he wanted to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance. That threat prompted Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then a Republican senator from Florida, to pass legislation preventing such a move. 

But Trump struck a more measured tone in recent days, saying the U.S. is committed to NATO and issuing support for the mutual defense pact of the treaty, Article 5. Trump’s “Rapid Response” X account, an extension of White House communications, pushed posts with Trump’s remarks and his officials repeating commitments to NATO. 

“It will be ironclad,” Whitaker said Tuesday, referring to Article 5. But he added that his main priority in Brussels will be to push allies to commit to 5 percent defense spending as a proportion of their gross domestic product (GDP). NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said last month allies will have to boost their defense spending by “considerably more than 3 percent” of GDP.

Whitaker said his first priority as ambassador would be to talk with allies about what it would take for each of them to reach 5 percent defense spending. He framed this as gauging how committed allies are to the alliance. Whitaker also said it would take “a whole lot more money” to move the U.S. from around 3.4 percent of GDP on defense to 5 percent. 

“If confirmed, when I get over there, I look forward to the conversation with all of the members on this committee about whether or not our NATO allies are really committed to the alliance,” he said.

“They say they are. But again, are these politicians just providing empty promises? Or are they actually stepping up, understanding that the world is dangerous, and the U.S. is their best ally in a dangerous world.”

Senate Democrats pressed Whitaker over their view of Trump’s most dangerous comments related to Ukraine and Russia, and what they view as a threat to NATO's security. 

They pushed Whitaker to say that Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, to agree that the U.S. standing with Ukraine makes NATO stronger and to address the extraordinary Oval Office shouting match between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

“He's done everything to discredit and demean Zelensky on the international stage with the shameful press conference in which he teamed up with the vice president to attack Zelensky,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). He pressed Whitaker, and other State Department nominees in the hearing, over whether Trump is a Russian asset. 

“What else could a Russian asset actually possibly do that Trump hasn't yet done?”

“I'm just going to have to politely disagree with you on the way you've framed” Trump's actions, Whitaker answered. 

He said he would not use “labels” and say Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, but quoted Vice President Vance acknowledging that Russia invaded Ukraine.

“Would it strengthen our alliance for us to abandon Ukraine and the uniform view of our NATO allies that defending against Russian aggression is in our collective national interest?” asked Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). 

“What's in our national interest, obviously, is a broad question,” Whitaker said, but was cut off under time constraints. 

When asked by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) if it was surprising that the U.S. sided with Russia, China and North Korea opposing a resolution at the U.N. condemning Russia’s invasion, Whitaker said “everything needs to be put into context.” 

Despite some Democratic pushback, Whitaker is unlikely to face steep hurdles in moving his confirmation forward in the Republican-controlled Senate, who have a 53-seat majority. 

While some Senate Democrats have said they will delay Trump’s State Department nominees, or vote “no” during floor votes on confirmations, these actions have had little impact on stalling confirmation for even Trump’s most controversial nominees. 

And Whitaker’s record as a loyal soldier for Trump and having a close relationship with the president is viewed as an asset in a critical national security post. 

“Donald Trump is the president, he sets the policies, and the ambassador is there to engage, communicate, report, etc. It is far better to have someone — especially someone like Whitaker, who will have the president's ear — than no one at all,” said Kurt Volker, who served as ambassador to NATO during the Bush administration and is a distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.

“Moreover — people should not assume that Trump's policies are destructive for NATO.  If anything, pushing European allies to increase defense spending is going to strengthen NATO.”

Rachel Rizzo, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, echoed that having an ambassador in place is always better than not having one. 

“This person is a direct line of communication to NATO allies and represents this administration,” she said.

“I think at a time when NATO allies really need to understand what Trump and his team are thinking, having a person in place that speaks for them is a way to help cut through the noise and get to the heart of policy decision-making — even if NATO allies don't always like what they’re hearing.”