President Trump is heading to the NATO summit in Ankara with one clear aim: to deal directly with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and press for closer defense cooperation. The trip signals a deliberate shift in U.S.-Turkey relations from confrontation to engagement, even while old disputes linger. This piece looks at why Turkey matters to NATO, why Trump favors a personal approach, and what risks and congressional hurdles remain.
Trump made his motive plain: “I’m going because of Erdoğan,” and he called the Turkish leader “a friend” and “a respected leader.” That kind of blunt, personal diplomacy is classic Trump—he deals with leaders he trusts and cuts straight to the point. It’s part political judgment and part transactional calculation about what Turkey can bring to the table.
The recent diplomatic U-turn is striking because relations were badly strained after Turkey bought Russia’s S-400 air defense system in 2019 and was pushed out of the F-35 program. Sanctions followed and trust frayed, yet strategic reality nudged Washington and Ankara back toward each other. Geopolitics rarely leaves room for idealism when hard power and critical geography are involved.
Turkey matters because it brings real military weight and a critical geographic position to NATO’s front lines. It controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles, sits next to Syria, Iraq and Iran, and fields the alliance’s second-largest military after the United States. When NATO shifts from counterterrorism back to collective defense, countries that deliver hard capability get priority attention.
Trump’s affection for Erdoğan is no secret and some of it is personal. “The first reason, which is unique to Trump, is he really likes Erdoğan, and Erdoğan likes him,” Jeffrey said. That chemistry matters, but it is only part of a larger strategic picture that sees Turkey as indispensable for containing Russian ambitions in the Black Sea and stabilizing the Middle East.
Analysts note practical examples of Turkish value: enforcement of the Montreux Convention that limited Russian naval access to the Black Sea, early drone support to Ukraine, and Ankara’s role as a mediating channel. “You can’t contain Russia in the Black Sea without Turkey,” Jeffrey said. Those are concrete contributions, not abstract talking points.
Still, Ankara’s foreign policy raises real concerns among allies, and Trump’s push to deepen defense ties has bumped into Washington’s checks and balances. Critics point to Turkey’s continued possession of the S-400, its outreach to BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and its vocal defense of Hamas after the Oct. 7 attacks. Those moves complicate alliance cohesion and make some lawmakers wary of unfettered rapprochement.
“Turkey is the only member country inside of NATO that has applied for membership in entities such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS,” Sinan Ciddi said. That dual track—deepening ties with non-Western blocs while seeking advanced U.S. technology—creates a dilemma for anyone trying to stitch a durable defense partnership. It’s a negotiation that requires balancing strategic benefit with security risks.
Congress has been the biggest stumbling block to some of the administration’s proposals, pushing back on an announced $700 million arms sale and demanding clear justification about risks tied to the S-400. Rep. Gregory Meeks insisted the State Department failed to fully address those concerns, and that scrutiny forced pause on the plan. Lawmakers are right to question tradeoffs, but there’s also a case for pragmatic moves that strengthen NATO’s hard-power posture.
The tricky technical issues remain as well: “The F-35 is a different issue,” Jeffrey said, stressing that operating the S-400 alongside a stealth fighter risks exposing sensitive Western technology. That technical reality limits how far Washington can go on full reintegration without safeguards. Still, the Trump approach is plain: deal directly, prioritize capability, and make hard choices to shore up NATO where it actually matters.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.