Did Trump Just Admit Intent to Commit Treason?

His remarks on Saturday went far beyond anything he has previously said about NATO and Russia.

Former President Trump at a campaign event in Conway, S.C., on Saturday. Photo: Sean Rayford for The New York Times

In a speech in South Carolina over the weekend, Trump spoke about NATO and Russia:

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent.’” 

Then Trump dropped a bombshell: “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.” 

This statement was so beyond the pale that even the New York Times, which is sleepwalking us into fascism, made it their top digital story.

The statement understandably was greeted with grave concern in Europe. Democratic officials in the U.S., including Joe Biden, also blasted it. And legal experts were forced to call the ultimate question: Was the statement an admission by Trump that he intends to commit treason if re-elected and Russia attacks NATO?

To understand why our allies are freaked out and Trump is even venturing into dangerous legal territory, we need to refer to the NATO treaty and understand how it works. We’ll start there today, then explain how Trump’s words really may signify intended treason. We’ll then explore how many Republican leaders are dismissing, excusing and justifying Trump’s outrageous statement.

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty

The bedrock of the NATO Treaty is Article 5, which states,

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. 

Article 5 is complemented by Article 6, which defines an “armed attack” on one or more of the parties to include, among other things, “an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe” or “on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories.”

The security and mutual defense guarantees of Article 5 are only as good as the parties’ intent to honor them, of course. So by claiming over the weekend that he would not protect NATO allies after an attack by Russia, and that he intended to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want,” Trump is threatening to anticipatorily breach the most important security pact in the Western World.

Yes, everyone who cares is very alarmed

As the Washington Post reported,

The 25-second snippet from Trump’s Saturday night speech reverberated around the planet on Sunday as diplomats parsed the meaning of what many regarded as the most incendiary statement about NATO to date by a former president who repeatedly bashed the alliance during his tenure, while often speaking with admiration about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The statement also made the New York Times’ headlines, with the paper of record finally drawing distinctions that matter:

His statement stunned many in Europe, especially after three years in which President Biden, attempting to restore the confidence in the alliance lost during Mr. Trump’s four years in office, has repeatedly said that the United States would “defend every inch of NATO territory.” 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned of the harms Trump’s rhetoric may cause to collective defense. “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” Stoltenberg said in a statement. “I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed NATO Ally.”

The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, wrote that “reckless statements” like Trump’s “serve only Putin’s interest.” 

And Norbert Röttgen, a top foreign policy lieutenant of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, urged Europe to prepare to go it alone without the U.S.: “Everyone should watch this video from Trump and then understand that Europe may soon have no choice but to defend itself,” he wrote. “We have to manage this because anything else would be surrender and self-abandonment!”

The Biden White House labeled Trump’s words “appalling and unhinged.” Said White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, “Rather than calling for wars and promoting deranged chaos, President Biden will continue to bolster American leadership and stand up for our national security interests—not against them.”

Trump’s sole remaining opponent in the GOP primary, former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, went on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday and blasted Trump for his support of Putin. “Don’t take the side of a thug who kills his opponents. Don’t take the side of someone who has gone in and invaded a country, and half a million people have died or been wounded because of Putin.”

Treason under Article III of the U.S Constitution

The word “treason” has been used fairly liberally since Trump took office, and especially after the events of January 6. But treason in the strictly legal sense has limited applicability. Article III of the U.S. Constitution actually defines it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 

In other words, it’s understood as a war time crime. So I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with calling the insurrectionists and Trump “treasonous” rather than the more accurate “seditious,” for example.

But as Harvard Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe pointed out, if Russia really did attack one of our NATO allies, we would be at war and Russia would be the enemy at that moment. After news of Trump’s statement was reported, Prof. Tribe wrote,

This is an announcement by Mr. Trump of intent to commit what Article III defines as “treason” by giving “aid and comfort” to an “enemy”

Tribe also amplified a quote from retired lawyer Albert T. Goins of Minnesota:

Perhaps, Mr. Trump forgot (if he ever knew) that our international obligations and treaties—such as those we undertook as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—are themselves the supreme law of the land as recognized at Article VI of our Constitution. 

As the so-called supremacy clause states in relevant part: 

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land….” Article VI, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution.

While Trump’s statements on Saturday are protected political speech, they evince a disturbing intent to unravel our treaties—the same bedrock agreements which, under the Supremacy Clause, are part of the “supreme law of the land.” And while we are not currently at war, Trump has made it clear he would violate that supreme law should we actually go to war.

In other words, Trump really has admitted an intent to commit treason should he win reelection and should Russia attack, all because he claims NATO members didn’t spend enough on their militaries. But ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO members are now spending far higher on their defense. So why raise this point now, if not to send a clear message to the Kremlin?

Trump’s enablers and apologists

While Trump has boasted in the past that he successfully pressured NATO allies to beef up their security budget commitments and military spending, this is the first time he has spoken about an actual conversation he claims to have had with a NATO country leader (whose identity Trump did not disclose). 

Let’s begin with the obvious: That conversation with a “president of a big country” almost certainly never happened. No one who was around Trump in 2018 recalls that conversation, and Trump is known to embellish and lie in order to puff himself up as a tough negotiator. 

In his piece immediately after the remarks, Tom Nichols of The Atlantic noted, “Trump’s spokespeople will likely try to clean up his remarks by saying he was merely playing hardball with recalcitrant European freeloaders.” And that is of course what his campaign spokespeople said.

A Trump campaign official mocked the criticism as “Democrat and media pearl-clutchers.” Trump senior advisor Jason Miller said, “President Trump got our allies to increase their NATO spending by demanding they pay up, but Joe Biden went back to letting them take advantage of the American taxpayer. When you don’t pay your defense spending, you can’t be surprised that you get more war.”

In fact, NATO spending by our allies has risen under Biden, which is unsurprising given Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine.

Sen. Marco Rubio, who once had the spine to challenge and call out Trump, now carries his water for him. When confronted by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with Trump’s remarks, Sen. Rubio responded, “Well, that's not what happened, and that’s not how I view that statement. He was talking about something, a story.” He noted Trump didn’t pull us out of NATO and that he “doesn’t talk like a traditional politician” and therefore Rubio had “zero concern.”

In a phone interview with the New York Times, Sen. Lindsey Graham similarly brushed aside concerns. “Give me a break—I mean, it’s Trump,” Graham said. “All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay.”

Even taken at face value—that Trump is only puffing and threatening to get his way—these remarks ignore the damage done to American credibility and to the security of the entire alliance. Without trust and airtight assurance, our allies do not know whether to believe what’s on paper or what’s coming out of Trump’s mouth. That’s too big of a gamble to take on something as important as national security.

Trump has been fairly coy about his intentions toward NATO should he be reelected. The Trump Campaign website says very little about it beyond this telling bit:

Finally we have to finish the process we began under my Administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission. Our foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia based on the lie that Russia represents our greatest threat. But the greatest threat to Western Civilization today is not Russia. It's probably, more than anything else, ourselves and some of the horrible, U.S.A. hating people that represent us.

If I were NATO, staring down the prospect of Russia expanding its war beyond Ukraine, I would be distraught and alarmed. And if I were Putin, I would be pleased that my investment in Trump, the GOP and disinformation was paying off so handsomely.