After months undermining Ukraine, Trump Admin Tries to Win Back Europe’s Canceled Arms Deals
In a new op-ed published in USA Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio praises the Trump administration’s NATO strategy as a “historic” success, touting a sweeping agreement under which alliance members will raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. But behind the celebratory tone lies a clear undertone of concern: America’s dominance in the global arms market is slipping and Trump’s Ukraine policy is largely to blame.
Rubio calls on allies to open their defense contracts to U.S. firms, arguing that American manufacturers are uniquely positioned to meet NATO’s growing needs.
“The United States is the only country in the world with the companies fully capable of adequately supplying Europe’s defense needs,” he writes.
What he doesn’t say is why so many allies are choosing not to.
Since returning to office, President Trump has actively undermined military support for Ukraine. The administration halted intelligence sharing that allowed Ukrainian forces to target Russian positions with U.S.-made HIMARS, delayed critical arms deliveries, and repeatedly cast doubt on Kyiv’s war aims. For many NATO governments, these actions didn’t just damage the war effort — they called into question whether U.S.-made weapons could be relied on in a real conflict.
That political unreliability is now being factored into procurement decisions.
In the past six months, countries including France, Germany, South Korea, and Italy have seen an uptick in defense exports to NATO partners. Poland has ordered artillery systems from South Korea. Lithuania is negotiating drone deliveries with France. Even traditionally U.S.-aligned governments, like Finland’s, are diversifying away from American suppliers.
“There’s a real fear now that the U.S. will turn off support mid-fight,” said a senior European defense official who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump already did it to Ukraine. No one wants to be next.”
The issue is not just technical — it’s political. Many of the systems at the heart of NATO’s warfighting capacity, including long-range missile platforms and air defense networks, require not just hardware, but continuous U.S. cooperation for updates, targeting, and operational integration. That cooperation now feels conditional.
Rubio’s op-ed frames the 5% spending pledge secured at the June NATO Summit in The Hague as a landmark achievement and a validation of Trump’s years-long campaign to push allies to spend more. But the real story is how those billions will be spent — and on whom.
Rubio insists the U.S. is best positioned to meet alliance needs. But after months of watching Washington deliberately undercut Ukraine, many allies are not prepared to let their security depend on the political whims of a U.S. president openly skeptical of NATO unity.
Rubio may be right that NATO is spending more than ever. But his op-ed reveals something else: America is asking for trust again — after having spent the better part of a year proving it can’t be counted on.
