Trump Administration’s Rhetoric Spurs Allies to Seek “Middle-Power” Cooperation

Senior officials in the Trump administration have repeatedly expressed frustration that traditional U.S. allies are deepening ties with one another and exploring a “middle-powers” strategy. The administration’s public responses—ranging from President Trump’s retort to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Carney at Davos to remarks by undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby—have emphasized a view that allies should remain dependent on American power. According to multiple officials, this stance is prompting European, Canadian, and other partners to coordinate more closely outside the U.S. framework.

The Bulwark

The United States long anchored a rules-based international order centered on American leadership. In recent years, officials such as Colby have dismissed the notion of a collective “middle-powers” approach as a misunderstanding of international relations. The sentiment reflects a broader “America First” posture that questions the need for U.S. support while demanding that allies acquiesce to American demands.

The Bulwark

• Stephen Miller (senior adviser) warned in January that the world is governed by “strength, force, and power.”

The Bulwark

• European nations are accelerating defense spending and expanding domestic arms production, which could increase support for Ukraine.

The Bulwark

• Canada is enlarging its armed forces, procuring new aircraft and submarines, and planning a new surface-ship fleet, enhancing its capacity to defend North America.

The Bulwark

• These developments, if realized, would expand the defense industries of both Europe and Canada, potentially shifting the balance of military capability away from reliance on U.S. forces.

The Bulwark

The administration’s rhetoric appears to be encouraging allies to pursue independent security arrangements. As European and Canadian militaries grow and coordinate, the United States may experience a reduction in its traditional influence over collective defense and diplomatic initiatives. The shift also raises questions about the reliability of U.S. commitments, especially given reported concerns about American munitions stockpiles.

The Bulwark

Commentators within the administration and external observers note the self-defeating nature of the approach. The article’s author argues that the administration’s “bullying and bluster” are driving the very cooperation they find objectionable. Critics such as Colby and Miller, while sharing a hard-power outlook, acknowledge that the United States currently serves as the primary bond holding allies together, a bond that may erode if the administration continues to alienate partners.

The Bulwark

• “Some of NATO’s largest economies, some of the richest countries—allies that are happiest to go on about the rules-based international order and middle powers banding together—still seem to think the era of free riding is here.” — Secretary

The Bulwark

• “We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it,” — State Marco Rubio

The Bulwark

The discussion highlights a tension between hard-power realism and the liberal-democratic values historically championed by the United States. While the administration emphasizes military strength, the author warns that abandoning shared democratic principles could further push allies toward alternative coalitions that uphold free trade, collective defense, and predictable foreign policies.

The Bulwark