President Donald Trump sought to soothe a diplomatic row on Saturday by publicly praising British soldiers after comments he made in Davos about NATO partners’ roles in Afghanistan provoked sharp rebukes from allies. The praise came on the heels of a phone call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and was posted on Trump’s social media account; French and American wire services described the move as a partial retreat from his earlier remarks.
Earlier this week in an interview in Davos, Trump questioned the United States’ dependence on NATO and said some allies had “sent troops… but they were a bit back, off the front lines” in Afghanistan. The comment prompted immediate denunciations: Starmer called the remark “insulting and shocking” and demanded an apology, Norway’s prime minister said the language was disrespectful, and Italy’s prime minister described herself as “shocked.” The backlash underlined how sensitive leaders are to public suggestions that their forces shirked combat duties.
Trump’s subsequent post specifically lauded “the great and brave soldiers of Britain,” but made no mention of other NATO partners whose leaders had voiced complaints. International outlets characterized the move as a partial backtrack rather than a full apology; the selective praise calmed London but left other capitals unassuaged. The episode highlights the limits of ad hoc, public signalling as a means of repairing frayed allied relationships.
The incident matters because NATO cohesion depends as much on political trust as on military capability. The alliance has spent years managing disagreements over burden-sharing and over the political narratives that justify collective action. Accusations that particular contingents were not “at the front” reopen painful debates about who bears risk in coalition operations, and when those disputes play out publicly they complicate alliance management ahead of future crises.
Beyond immediate NATO politics, the exchange is emblematic of a wider theme in Washington’s foreign policy: the transactional, personality-driven diplomacy of a president who sees alliances through the lens of performance and reciprocity. Even when statements are partially retracted or softened, the initial damage to confidence can persist, prompting allies to seek firmer reassurances in private or to hedge by deepening ties elsewhere.