OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump NATO summit: pressure on allies over burden-sharing and Iran messaging; Erdogan meeting and F-35 bargaining

47 sources · updated 2026-07-09
Left 57% Center 6% Right 36%
27 left · 3 center · 17 right

What happened

At the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8, 2026, President Donald Trump met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and said the U.S. would consider allowing Turkey to buy F-35 fighter jets again and lifting sanctions imposed after Turkey bought Russia’s S-400 air-defense system. Trump also pressed NATO allies to move faster toward a 5% of GDP defense-spending target and criticized several European countries for not supporting U.S. military operations against Iran or granting base access. During the summit, Trump singled out Spain over defense spending and Iran-related cooperation, threatened trade retaliation, renewed his view that the U.S. should control Greenland, and said U.S. troop levels in Europe could depend on allied responses to those issues. NATO leaders also discussed Ukraine, and Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv sought more air-defense support, including Patriot systems.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The left-side Axios coverage carries a concrete Ukraine deliverable that the right-side NATO pieces do not: Trump told Zelensky the U.S. will license Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air-defense interceptors. Fox says Zelensky was expected to press for air defense and Patriots, but the right-side articles provided here do not report that announced licensing outcome. The right side, especially Daily Wire, supplies a pro-Erdogan backstory mostly absent from the left set: Brunson’s 2018 release, Erdogan backing off a 2019 veto of NATO defense plans for the Baltics and Poland, Turkey taking over the U.S. fight against ISIS in northern Syria, and LNG procurement contracts. Left sources mention Erdogan as one of the few leaders in Trump’s good graces and cover F-35 bargaining, but not that detailed ledger. The same summit is framed with sharply different verbs: Axios says Trump “hijacked NATO’s summit,” that it became “the Trump show,” and that his “grudge” overtook the agenda; Fox opinion calls the remarks “the public emergence of an American grand strategy,” while Daily Caller says Trump came “to make his expectations clear.” On F-35s, the unasked question is practical and legal: what exact certification or action would satisfy U.S. law if Turkey still has Russian S-400 systems? Axios quotes Vance saying “certain things” must be certified; Breitbart and Fox cite congressional/legal objections, but none spell out the required fix.
Bottom line

The starkest gap is that left coverage stresses rupture and volatility at NATO, while right coverage more often validates Trump’s burden-sharing case and Erdogan relationship; each side also leaves out concrete facts the other includes.

The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the summit as another sign of Trump destabilizing NATO through personal grievances, loyalty tests, and transactional diplomacy. Axios, NBC, Bloomberg, the BBC and the New York Times emphasized Trump’s anger that European allies did not join or facilitate U.S. actions against Iran, presenting his comments as open contempt toward traditional partners and a source of anxiety about the U.S. military footprint in Europe. These outlets highlighted the contradiction between NATO’s formal show of unity and the practical strain caused by Trump threatening Spain, floating troop withdrawals, revisiting Greenland, and publicly insulting or pressuring allied leaders. On Turkey, left-leaning sources focused on the policy reversal involved in readmitting Ankara to the F-35 program despite its Russian S-400 systems, Israeli objections, congressional resistance, and concerns that Trump was rewarding Erdoğan because he views him as personally loyal. They also treated the Zelenskyy meeting and possible Patriot-related support as a consequential but secondary subplot overshadowed by Iran and Trump’s feud with allies.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage generally presented Trump’s NATO posture as a forceful attempt to make allies pay more, support U.S. security priorities, and stop relying on American protection without reciprocation. Fox News, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Breitbart and Daily Wire emphasized that NATO allies had underinvested for years and that Trump’s pressure helped produce higher defense-spending commitments, with some coverage highlighting praise from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that Trump had won the burden-sharing argument. Conservative outlets framed Spain as a particularly poor ally because it resisted the 5% defense target and refused to assist U.S. operations related to Iran, making Trump’s trade threats an expression of frustration with a partner seen as shirking obligations. On Turkey, the right was split: some coverage praised Erdoğan as a useful regional partner who stayed out of the Iran war and cooperated with Trump, while other conservative pieces stressed bipartisan and pro-Israel opposition to selling F-35s to Turkey because of the S-400 issue, Erdoğan’s hostility toward Israel, and risks to U.S. technology. Opinion-oriented right coverage also cast Trump’s approach as an emerging grand strategy based on deterrence, alliance reciprocity, geography, industrial capacity, and prioritizing China.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest point from the right is that NATO burden-sharing is a real and long-running problem: Europe and Canada have greater capacity than they historically used, and the war in Ukraine has shown that defense spending must translate into actual production of missiles, air defenses, ships, and deployable forces. Trump’s pressure has plausibly accelerated allied spending commitments, and allies that expect U.S. protection should be prepared to support U.S. security priorities or at least clearly explain legal and strategic limits. The strongest point from the left is that alliances depend not only on budgets but also on trust, predictability, and shared decision-making; threatening trade with Spain, tying troop levels to Greenland and Iran grievances, and publicly humiliating leaders can make allies hedge against the U.S. rather than strengthen NATO. The F-35 issue is the clearest test of whether Trump’s transactional approach advances U.S. interests: Turkey is strategically important, but selling it advanced stealth aircraft while it retains Russian S-400 systems and clashes with Israel would require legal, technical, and regional-security safeguards that cannot be waved away by personal chemistry. Overall, Trump’s summit produced pressure that may push NATO toward more self-reliance, but the same pressure risks weakening alliance cohesion if it is delivered as punishment and personal loyalty tests rather than as a disciplined strategy with clear conditions and credible follow-through.

47 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.