Trump’s NATO Threats Add to Business Risks at Home, Overseas

President Donald Trump’s NATO-bashing has been limited to rhetoric—at least for now—but it’s fueling concerns that global business as usual has vanished.

Growing geopolitical tension and shifting US-European alliances are forcing companies to adjust to a new era of fractured international trust that threatens to disrupt supply chains, on-the-ground operations, global customer bases, and partner-building overseas.

Upholding alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization creates the stability businesses need to invest, expand, and take calculated risks, said Saqib Alam, partner in Morrison & Foerster LLP’s London office. Fracturing trust sets markets on edge as they navigate not just volatility, which is part and parcel of the industry, but uncertainty.

“You don’t need a formal US exit from NATO to create disruption,” said Alam, who advises companies on geopolitical strategy. “Threats to leave are all just as damaging.”

Trump’s recent reupping of NATO gripes, including threats to leave the organization, comes as the US remains embroiled in a war with Iran that European allies say they never agreed to. That’s on top of US-led military intervention in Venezuela, threats to invade Cuba and Greenland, and preexisting conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.

As a result, global conflict is taking up more company brain space: The number of boards taking some kind of action on geopolitical risks tripled since 2021 to 76% in 2025, according to recent data from EY.

So far, no major global restructuring of alliances has happened. Companies are still viewing international conflicts as isolated events, not as symptoms of a new, more unstable era they’ll operate in for the foreseeable future, said Tina Fordham, founder and chief geostrategist at Fordham Global Foresight.

“Most companies are just starting to have the conversation,” Fordham said. “There’s an overwhelming normality bias.”

Unprepared Boardrooms

Trump would need congressional approval to formally withdraw from NATO. But questions remain about his willingness to withhold military aid, recall personnel from NATO headquarters, and more.

Many existing corporate leaders came up in a period of relative peace and prosperity, Fordham said. Wrapping their heads around geopolitical turmoil as an enduring risk is harder as a result.

The mere act of repeatedly questioning NATO’s integrity—a hallmark of both Trump administrations—creates corporate risks from personnel to supply chains, experts say. But about 65% of companies said they still lack key data needed to assess geopolitical risks, according to a survey from PwC.

Global conflict is undoubtedly at the top of company concerns, said Nitin Chadda, president of consultancy Teneo’s global political risk advisory. But boards and C-suites must address the gap between awareness and action, he said. Scenario planning, assessing contracts and supply chain vulnerabilities, and turning geopolitical discussions from one-offs into agenda regulars are included in that mission.

Alam said he’s telling boards to start pricing war into their discussions. Along with that comes concerns about how to maintain international relationships in a fragmented landscape.

“Boards are now gaming out scenarios that used to sit squarely within defense ministries of major countries,” he said.

Corporate diplomacy is especially important as longstanding alliances show signs of fracturing, Chadda said. C-suites and boards can no longer rely on nations to keep the peace between themselves: Businesses should create their own relationships with governments at home and abroad, he said.

“If you’re looking at even a rhetorical pullback from NATO—threatening that—then what are you doing today to build, improve, and enhance your relationship with countries where there’s a critical market?” he said.

Defense, Tech Pressures

Among those facing the most stress to keep their multinational partnerships in order are Big Tech and military contractors.

If NATO crumbles, companies abroad might be forced to use American contractors for security interests as European manufacturing capabilities catch up, Alam said. At the same time, Trump’s rhetoric alone “undermines their position and their business in the region,” Chadda said.

That’s not to say American defense contractors couldn’t be part of a European defense industry ecosystem, Chadda said. Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., shared similar thoughts. In an April 6 letter to shareholders, the banking mogul called for a strong NATO and a “transatlantic approach” to some defense production, such as RTX Corp.’s partnership with German weapons manufacturer Diehl Defence.

The US technology sector is another to watch. Rifts in international alliances create hesitancy to rely on American tech companies for critical parts of the European supply chain, Chadda said.

Companies will be waiting to see if rhetoric turns into a “trigger” event, such as shirking treaty responsibilities to an ally, he said.

But even without concrete action from Trump, risks are already shaking out, Alam said.

“When treaty certainty gives way to political chaos, boards go into crisis mode and investors get nervous,” he added. “What I’m telling clients is, prepare for fragmentation but hope for continuity.”