what did trump say about nato troops in afghanistan

Donald Trump recently claimed in a TV interview that NATO allies sent troops to Afghanistan but “stayed a little back” or “a little off the front lines,” and he questioned whether NATO would really come to America’s defense if needed.

What exactly Trump said

In a Fox Business / Fox News interview in late January 2026, Trump argued that the United States has “never needed” NATO and cast doubt on whether the alliance would defend the US in a crisis.

Key lines attributed to him include:

• That NATO allies “sent troops to Afghanistan, but they stayed a little off the front lines” or “stayed a little back.”

• That the US has “never really asked much of them,” and that he is “not sure” NATO would come to America’s aid if required.

These comments framed NATO’s role in Afghanistan as limited and implied that allied forces avoided the heaviest fighting.

Why the remarks caused backlash

Leaders, veterans, and commentators across NATO countries condemned Trump’s characterization as inaccurate and insulting to those who fought and died in Afghanistan.

Reactions highlighted that:

• NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time after 9/11, and allies fought alongside US forces in Afghanistan for two decades.

• Countries like the UK, Denmark, Canada, and France took heavy casualties, including hundreds of British troops and dozens from smaller allies such as Denmark, which had one of the highest per‑capita death rates.

• European leaders and veterans described Trump’s remarks as “insulting,” “appalling,” “plainly wrong,” and out of touch with the human cost of the war.

Critics argued that NATO troops were often on or near the front lines in difficult provinces such as Helmand in southern Afghanistan, where British and Danish forces in particular saw intense combat and significant losses.

How this fits into Trump’s broader NATO stance

Trump has repeatedly questioned NATO’s value and the reliability of allies, especially around issues of defense spending and burden‑sharing.

Recent patterns include:

• Public skepticism about whether European countries would “be there” for the US if attacked, even while saying the US would still “support NATO.”

• Using Afghanistan as an example to argue that allied contributions are overstated, despite official data and leaders from NATO countries stressing their substantial sacrifices.

This latest controversy has intensified debate in Europe and North America about alliance cohesion, respect for fallen soldiers, and the political risks of Trump’s rhetoric for NATO unity.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.