Formed in 1949, in the wake of a world war which cost tens of millions of lives, 12 countries signed the NATO charter in Washington, D.C. The aims were to deter Soviet expansionism, to prevent the rise of nationalistic militarism in Europe, and to promote European integration.

A lot has changed, in Trump’s America.

Today, Trump is an objective ally of the Russian dictator Putin. The US President is deeply critical of the UK and France, while paying homage to Victor Urban, who has undermined NATO repeatedly. Trump mocks the EU and was a vocal supporter of Brexit.

His approach to NATO allies has been to bully and threaten.

This week, he was irate that NATO members didn’t do his bidding in the chaotic and poorly thought out war he started with Iran.

Canadians mostly don’t like Trump.

In our latest survey (online, 4000 interviews, April 4-8, 2026) 17% have a positive feeling about the US leader, while 77% have a negative view. He does a little better among young men (30% like him) and Conservative voters (25%). But overall, people here in Canada have had more than enough. Few (16%) express much confidence in how he approached the Iran war.

When asked to choose between two points of view about Trump’s criticisms of NATO, the mood was blunt. Only 24% felt “other NATO countries should accept Trump’s demands of them in order to ensure America stays in NATO” while 76% said “Under Trump’s leadership, the US is an unreliable and damaging partner to the NATO alliance and the remaining countries should move on without the US in the future”. This was the majority view across party lines, including 67% of Conservative voters.

Now, none of this is to suggest that Canadians have reviewed and carefully considered what it would mean to have a NATO without the US. No one has really mapped out what that would look like and how it might affect our sense of security, or our sense of feeling that we were in a productive and positive “alliance” of like minded countries.

What it does reveal is the extent to which Canadians have arrived at the view that as long as America is run by this one individual, our economic or security interests are more vulnerable to his whims, and our interests may be better served by imagining new relationships, whether in trade or security matters.