Trump Thinking About ‘Punishing’ NATO Allies For Refusing to Help with Iran
The administration of Donald Trump is weighing potential changes to its relationship with NATO following a recent military operation involving Iran, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. The report said officials are considering options that could include adjusting troop deployments and reallocating resources among allied countries, based in part on their level of support during the operation.
The discussions come as part of a broader review of U.S. commitments within the North American Treaty Organization and could have implications beyond the immediate region involved in the conflict, the WSJ reported.
The report, citing unnamed administration officials, said countries including Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania could see an expanded U.S. military presence due to their support during the recent conflict. By contrast, nations such as Germany and Spain were identified as potentially facing reductions in U.S. troop levels or resources, based on their responses to the situation.
Spain, led by socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, has drawn particular attention. According to the report, Spanish authorities initially declined to allow U.S. forces to use bases in the country for operations and later restricted certain military flights through its airspace.
The developments come amid broader tensions between Spain and the Trump administration, including longstanding disagreements over defense spending targets within NATO. Spain has consistently failed to allot even the basic 2 percent of its GDP to its military, per the alliance’s agreement.
Germany has permitted the use of its bases for operations related to the Iran conflict, but senior officials have publicly criticized the U.S. approach.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the situation as a “massive escalation with an open outcome,” and said the conflict was “not our war.” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier also criticized the operation, calling it a “disastrous mistake” and raising concerns about potential violations of international law, the WSJ reported.
Other U.S. allies have also faced criticism from Trump, including the United Kingdom, which he referred to as a “once great ally.”
The remarks followed decisions by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose government initially declined to allow the use of British bases for offensive operations and later permitted only limited “defensive” activities to be conducted from U.K. territory.
Additionally, France and Italy have been accused of denying U.S. access to their airspace and declining to participate in an international coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz while the conflict continues.
Expressing frustration with NATO in general, Trump posted comments on Truth Social on Wednesday criticizing the response of some NATO partners: “NATO wasn’t there when we needed them, and they won’t be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice.”
The dispute over Greenland has been cited by some European analysts as a factor in strained relations between the United States and its allies. At the same time, supporters of Donald Trump have argued that recent disagreements over access to military bases underscore concerns about relying on allies for strategic positioning, Breitbart News noted.
Trump has long been critical of NATO, a stance that has historically set him apart within parts of the Republican Party. However, in recent weeks, other prominent figures have also raised questions about the alliance’s role, including his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Amid heightened tensions between the United States and its European allies, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte visited the White House in what officials described as an effort to ease strains within the alliance.
In an interview with CNN, Rutte said he understood why Trump had expressed frustration with some NATO members, while emphasizing that the majority of European countries had provided support during the conflict.
House Passes Key Bill In Nod To Trump Admin
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it easier to get federal permits to build infrastructure for AI projects. The bill, known as the SPEED Act, garners support from major tech companies such as OpenAI, Micron, and Microsoft.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 218 – 213, despite a conservative revolt that almost killed it in a procedural vote. The Senate will now look at the bill, and it will probably be part of a bigger discussion about changing the rules for permits.
SPEED Act supporters say the U.S. must beat China and other global rivals to be the top AI leader.
“The electricity we will need to power AI computing for civilian and military use is a national imperative,” said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., the bill’s sponsor and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.
The SPEED Act would reform the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal reviews for projects that would affect the environment.
The SPEED Act would shorten the current six-year statute of limitations for NEPA litigation to 150 days and tighten the deadlines for NEPA reviews.
Recent permitting delays for Democratic-backed clean energy projects have garnered bipartisan support for permitting reform.
As AI has become a major industry and power-hungry data centers have put more strain on the electric grid, pressure has grown on Congress to take action.
The SPEED Act would enable the United States to be “nimble enough to build what we need, when we need it,” according to Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, the bill’s Democratic cosponsor.
However, the majority of Democrats opposed the SPEED Act and insisted that any permitting bill reverse President Donald Trump’s efforts to stifle offshore wind and other renewable energy sources.
The GOP leadership’s insertion of language to exempt Trump’s attempts to block renewables from provisions in the SPEED Act that would limit the White House’s ability to arbitrarily yank permits it dislikes intensified Democratic resistance.
During a procedural vote on the House floor, conservatives opposed to renewable energy demanded concessions in exchange for their votes, leading to the addition of the amendment.
“That provision codifies a broken permitting status quo. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in the Senate to craft a bipartisan product that can become law,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., who supports permitting reform but opposed the SPEED Act.
The “U.S. Tech Force,” a new initiative announced by the Trump administration this month, will employ roughly 1,000 engineers and other experts to work on artificial intelligence infrastructure and other technology projects across the federal government.
According to an official government website, participants will commit to a two-year employment program where they will work with teams that directly report to agency leaders in “collaboration with leading technology companies.”
According to the website, these “private sector partners” include Amazon Web Services, Apple, Google, Dell Technologies, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, Oracle, Palantir, Salesforce, and many more.
As it vies with China for supremacy in the quickly expanding field, the Trump administration is putting more effort into building America’s AI infrastructure, according to the Tech Force.
Four days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a national AI policy framework, which industry leaders opposed, states creating their own regulations, the initiative was unveiled.
After completing their two terms, Tech Force members are eligible to apply for full-time positions with companies that have agreed to hire program alumni. Employees of the private partners may also be nominated to serve periods in the government.
“We’re trying to reshape the workforce to make sure we have the right talent on the right problems,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor recently told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Supreme Court Delivers Big Decision In First Amendment Case
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian arrested while preaching near a suburban amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi, may proceed with his civil rights lawsuit challenging the local ordinance that led to his arrest.
Olivier had previously been convicted of violating a city ordinance that restricted demonstrations to a designated “protest zone.” Lower courts had barred him from pursuing his claims, determining that his prior conviction prevented him from filing a lawsuit over the incident.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, allowing Olivier’s case to move forward and be considered on its merits.
“Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy — an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future — his suit can proceed, notwithstanding his prior conviction,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
Olivier’s lawyers stated that he was peacefully demonstrating when he was arrested for refusing to relocate to a designated “protest zone.” They argued that the legal principle involved impacts free speech cases across the political spectrum.
“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the conservative nonprofit First Liberty Institute, per the AP.
“As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” added attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn.
The decision opens the door for him to file a civil rights lawsuit, although it does not guarantee a victory. Local governments have expressed concern that a ruling in favor of Olivier could have significant implications, potentially leading to an influx of new lawsuits against cities and towns.
The city of Brandon has stated that the restrictions were not based on religion and that Olivier had various other legal options to contest the law. City attorneys indicated that the ordinance, which limits Olivier to a designated “protest zone,” has previously withstood another lawsuit.
In 2019, Olivier was not permitted to preach outside the theater or use signs or speakers during live events. Olivier was arrested in 2021 for breaking the town’s ordinance that limited where he could speak in public. Later, he sued, saying the city had violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Olivier didn’t go to court over the $350 fine he got. Instead, he filed suit to make sure that the city law wouldn’t stop him or someone else like him from preaching outside the theater.
“Assuming a credible threat of prosecution, a plaintiff can bring an action to challenge a local law as violating the Constitution and to prevent that law’s future enforcement,” Kagan wrote.
Heck v. Humphrey set a precedent holding that a person can’t sue to overturn a prior conviction. Olivier’s case challenged that precedent.
Kagan said that a lawsuit asking for future help with an activity, like Olivier exercising his First Amendment rights, was valid under the court’s rules. She said it was like a prisoner asking for a fairer trial in the future.
“Olivier’s suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution, so the Heck bar does not come into play,” Kagan wrote.
May you like
“There is no looking back in Olivier’s suit; both in the allegations made, and in the relief sought, the suit is entirely future-oriented – even if success in it shows that something past should not have occurred,” Kagan continued. “His suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed.”
Earlier, Kagan denied a request from four Mexican nationals who asked the court to block their deportation orders so they could file an appeal.
