Before Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his first foreign trip as president, prominent administration officials told reporters he would explicitly endorse the core principle at the heart of the alliance: the Article 5 guarantee that an attack on one NATO country would represent an attack on every member. Then Trump spoke — and there was no such endorsement.
The problem wasn’t that those officials were trying to deceive reporters ahead of the speech. Rather, the problem was that those officials were themselves deceived — by their boss.
Politico reported yesterday that National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spent weeks making sure that the Article 5 language was included in the remarks, and were blindsided when Trump delivered his speech.
Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on” — and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”
The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government…. [T]he episode suggests that what has been portrayed — correctly — as a major rift within the 70-year-old Atlantic alliance is also a significant moment of rupture inside the Trump administration, with the president withholding crucial information from his top national security officials — and then embarrassing them by forcing them to go out in public with awkward, unconvincing, after-the-fact claims that the speech really did amount to a commitment they knew it did not make.
According to Politico‘s reporting, McMaster, Mattis, and Tillerson — nicknamed “MM&T” — initially had to lobby just to get an advanced look at the speech, then invested considerable effort into changing it. The president then altered the remarks MM&T had worked on “without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.”
The result is NATO members that are no longer sure it can trust the alliance’s most dominant member, and an administration burdened by unprecedented dysfunction that undermines its ability to implement a coherent foreign policy.









