[Hormuz Deployment] Trump, enraged by allies’ refusal of support saying “no help needed,” exposes the naked face of self-serving diplomacy

Trump publicly criticizes allies turning away from the Strait of Hormuz
U.S. diplomatic apparatus faltering, with Trump loyalists filling roles instead of diplomats
America-first stance, including tariff pressure, deepens rifts with allies

U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized allied nations. As many allies refrained from intervening in the Strait of Hormuz and declined Washington’s request for support, he directly vented dissatisfaction toward those countries. Experts point out that the widening rift between the United States and its allies stems from diplomatic missteps by the Trump administration, including crony diplomacy, an America-first policy line, and extreme trade measures.

Trump voices frustration toward allies

On the 17th (local time), during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin at the White House, President Trump told reporters, “All NATO allies fully agreed with what we did, but they don’t want to help us,” adding, “I think NATO is making a very foolish mistake.” At present, major allies—including NATO members such as Germany, France, Canada, Greece, and Norway—have stated they will not participate in military operations alongside the United States and Israel. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are also reportedly unlikely to provide direct military support.

On the same day, Trump reiterated similar grievances via his social media platform Truth Social. He wrote, “The United States has been informed by NATO allies that they do not wish to be involved in our military operations against the Iranian terror regime,” adding, “This comes despite the fact that nearly all countries strongly agree with our actions and that Iran must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons in any form.” He continued, “Fortunately, we have devastated the Iranian military and achieved military success, so we no longer need the support of NATO countries,” emphasizing, “The same goes for Japan, Australia, or South Korea.”

Trump’s anger was also confirmed through his close allies. Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent pro-Trump figure in U.S. politics, wrote on X that day, “I just spoke with the President about the reluctance of European allies to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz operational,” adding, “I have never seen him this angry.” He continued, “Keeping the Strait of Hormuz functioning benefits Europe far more than it does the United States,” and criticized allied attitudes as “beyond displeasing,” saying they appear to view military action to prevent Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the supreme leader killed in U.S. and Israeli strikes—from acquiring nuclear weapons as solely America’s problem rather than their own.

Trump-style diplomacy heightens global instability

As cooperation between the United States and its allies shows clear signs of instability, experts identify President Trump’s diplomatic strategy as the starting point of this fracture. Since the launch of his second administration on January 2 last year, Trump has consistently faced criticism for pursuing “diplomacy without diplomats.” In most cases, he has bypassed traditional diplomatic channels, including the State Department and the National Security Council, when addressing international issues.

According to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), more than half of U.S. ambassadorial posts (out of a total of 195) remain completely vacant without nominees. Of the 70 ambassadors who have been nominated, only six are career diplomats, while the rest are politicians or individuals from Trump’s personal network. Foreign media outlets such as The New York Times and Reuters analyze that Trump, who trusts few beyond his inner circle, adopted this approach to personally retain control over diplomatic matters and deliver results.

The problem is that this reliance on loyalists has significantly weakened U.S. negotiating power. Two rounds of negotiations held in Geneva, Switzerland, last month illustrate this clearly. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and longtime friend, along with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, conducted nuclear talks with Iran on the 17th and also held trilateral ceasefire negotiations with Ukraine and Russia. Non-diplomatic representatives handled sensitive diplomatic issues in back-to-back discussions on the same day. As a result, the nuclear talks with Iran ended with only a general agreement to continue follow-up negotiations, while the ceasefire talks stalled on key issues, including Ukrainian territorial disputes.

Additionally, Trump’s departure from the multilateral system of the international community has been cited as another concern. Since returning to power, he has foregrounded a “power-centric” diplomacy, including territorial expansion, while threatening the postwar multilateral security framework, including NATO. He has also declared his intention to withdraw from dozens of international organizations in which the United States has participated, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Democracy Fund, UN Women, and the UN Population Fund. The United States, once a guardian of the global order, is transforming into a destabilizing force, and the international system built on alliances and norms is beginning to fracture.

Tariff war backfires on Trump

The extreme America-first stance reflected in tariff policies has also been cited as a factor weakening cohesion between the United States and its allies. In April last year, President Trump imposed high tariffs targeting major trading partners, including China, effectively igniting a “tariff war.” Sector-specific tariff threats expanded from steel and aluminum to key advanced industries such as electric vehicles, semiconductors, and batteries. In response, major economies including China and the European Union (EU) retaliated with counter-tariffs, heightening global tensions.

In subsequent tariff negotiations, the United States prioritized protecting domestic industries and improving its trade balance over coordination with allies. Tariffs were used as leverage to demand increased investment in the United States and greater market access. This pressure did not spare traditional allies such as South Korea, the EU, and Japan. Japan pledged $550 billion in investment in the United States in exchange for tariff reductions, while South Korea committed to $350 billion in investment, $100 billion in purchases of U.S. energy, and market opening measures for automobiles and agricultural products. The EU also accepted conditions to ease non-tariff barriers, including regulatory and market access requirements.

Within the United States, criticism has steadily mounted that Trump’s trade policies amount to a “diplomatic self-inflicted wound.” In a report last year, Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee argued that Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, applied indiscriminately to allies and adversaries alike, have undermined a united front against China and, as a result, weakened America’s security and industrial base. Experts at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) similarly assessed that tariff pressure has strained relations with key partners such as Europe, Japan, and Australia, eroding U.S. security cooperation and global leadership. Meanwhile, the Brookings Institution criticized Trump’s trade strategy as akin to 19th-century mercantilism, warning that treating allies as transactional counterparts rather than cooperative partners increases not only economic costs but also strategic and institutional risks.