OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump pressures NATO allies on burden-sharing and links Iran messaging; Turkey F-35/NATO bargaining at NATO summit

177 sources · updated 2026-07-09
Left 56% Center 20% Right 24%
100 left · 35 center · 42 right

What happened

On July 7-8, 2026, President Donald Trump attended the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, where he pressed allies to move faster toward a 5% of GDP defense-spending target and criticized several European governments for not supporting U.S. operations against Iran. During the summit, the U.S. revoked a sanctions waiver allowing Iranian oil sales and launched new strikes on Iranian targets after Iran was accused of attacking three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz; Trump then said the U.S.-Iran ceasefire was, in his view, over. Trump met Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and said the U.S. would consider lifting sanctions on Turkey and allowing it back into the F-35 fighter-jet program, despite Turkey’s Russian S-400 air-defense system and congressional restrictions. Trump also met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and said the U.S. would allow Ukraine to produce Patriot air-defense interceptors under license.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

NPR’s summit preview adds a Turkey context that the right-leaning Erdoğan/F-35 pieces mostly leave out: “Under Erdogan’s leadership Turkish democracy has seen significant backsliding, including crackdowns on political opposition and freedom of press.” Daily Wire’s comparable piece instead calls Erdoğan an “incredible partner” via a White House spokeswoman and says he has “consistently delivered on what Trump has asked for,” without that democracy caveat. On Iran, several left-side pieces attach legal or escalation warnings to the same Trump threats that right-side pieces report more operationally. NPR says Trump floated hitting “electric plants and desalination plants” and adds, “Attacks on civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime”; OAN reports those same categories were “on the table as potential targets” but gives no war-crime frame. Word choice diverges sharply: NPR headlines a “NATO pressure campaign” and describes Rutte’s mission as “keeping Trump happy,” while Daily Caller says Trump came “to make his expectations clear,” and Daily Wire frames the Turkey meeting around “friendship” and allies failing to support an “operation against Iran.” The F-35 legal question is raised but not answered: NPR says a “congressional ban” blocks Turkey sales; Daily Wire and Breitbart cite the S-400-linked statutory restrictions and sanctions, but none of the supplied articles says what exact certification, vote, waiver, or S-400 disposition would legally make a sale possible.
Bottom line

The sharpest gap is that left-side coverage more often flags alliance-fragility, democracy, and civilian-target legal caveats, while right-side coverage more often foregrounds Trump’s stated grievance: allies did not pay enough or help enough on Iran. On Turkey’s F-35s, both sides mention obstacles, but no article actually explains the legal path around the congressional/S-400 barrier.

The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the summit as another test of NATO’s cohesion under Trump’s transactional approach to alliances. These sources emphasized that NATO allies have already increased defense spending substantially, but argued Trump’s public anger, threats over Greenland and Spain, and demands for personal “loyalty” risk undermining the trust that makes the alliance work. On Iran, left-leaning outlets stressed that many European allies were reluctant to support U.S. operations because they were not consulted before the U.S.-Israeli war began, and they highlighted the risks of Trump’s threats to hit civilian infrastructure, escalate strikes, or revive a blockade. Coverage of Turkey focused on Erdoğan’s strategic leverage and Trump’s affinity for him, while warning that rewarding Ankara with F-35 access could bypass legal safeguards, ignore democratic backsliding, and alarm Israel and members of Congress because of Turkey’s S-400 purchase and regional posture.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage generally presented Trump’s NATO pressure as a necessary correction to decades of unfair burden-sharing, arguing that European allies have relied too heavily on U.S. military power while failing to reciprocate during the Iran conflict. These sources highlighted Trump’s push for the 5% defense-spending target as a major success and portrayed his frustration with countries such as Spain, Germany, France and Italy as justified, especially when they denied support or access for operations tied to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. On Iran, right-leaning outlets framed U.S. strikes and the restoration of sanctions as proportionate consequences for attacks on commercial shipping and violations of the ceasefire. Coverage of Turkey was more divided: many praised Erdoğan as a useful NATO partner who stayed out of the Iran war and maintained a strong relationship with Trump, while conservative critics warned that selling F-35s to Turkey would endanger U.S. technology, violate congressional conditions unless the S-400 issue is solved, and threaten Israel’s regional military edge.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest argument from the right is that NATO burden-sharing has been a real and long-running problem, and Trump’s pressure has clearly helped push allies toward higher spending and greater responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense. The strongest argument from the left is that alliances are not only accounting exercises: public humiliation, threats against allies’ territory or trade, and linking NATO loyalty to a war allies did not authorize can weaken the political trust needed for deterrence. On Iran, attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz give the U.S. a legitimate security rationale to respond, but Trump’s rhetoric about ending talks, striking infrastructure, and taking over strategic assets raises escalation and economic risks. On Turkey, Ankara is strategically important inside NATO, but any F-35 deal should be conditioned on resolving the S-400 problem, satisfying U.S. law, protecting sensitive technology, and addressing regional concerns rather than treated as a personal favor between leaders.

177 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

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