Pentagon Email Suggests Suspending Spain From NATO, NATO Says No Treaty Mechanism

A report tied to an internal Pentagon email has triggered a sharp European response after it suggested the United States could “suspend Spain from the Alliance” over Spain’s refusal to support American operations in the war with Iran.

“An internal Pentagon email circulated this week by Elbridge Colby, the U”

19FortyFive

NATO officials and multiple European leaders said the alliance’s founding treaty does not provide a mechanism for suspending or expelling a member, with NATO’s position summarized in El Mundo as: “The founding treaty does not contemplate any mechanism for expelling a member.”

19FortyFive

El Mundo also quoted a NATO official confirming to the outlet that “this possibility does not exist, that it is not included in the organization's treaty, and that a country's exit can only be driven by its own initiative.”

The same legal point was echoed in DW’s account, where NATO officials said “the NATO treaty contains no provision for the suspension or expulsion of one of the alliance's members.”

In parallel, Firstpost reported that a NATO official told the BBC that the alliance’s founding treaty “does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion.”

The dispute has been framed around access, basing, and overflight rights—ABO—for the Iran war, with the Pentagon email described as treating ABO as “just the absolute baseline for NATO.”

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez moved quickly to dismiss the report, telling reporters at an EU leaders summit in Cyprus that he was “not worried” and that Spain would not engage with the controversy as rumor.

DW reported that Sánchez said he was “not worried” after the report suggested the US is considering expelling Spain from NATO for failing to support American operations in the war with Iran.

Cadena SER

In El Mundo, Sánchez was quoted saying, “We do not work on emails; we work on official documents and positions that the Government of Spain takes in this case.”

DW similarly quoted him: “We do not work off emails. We work off official documents and government positions, in this case, by the United States.”

Multiple outlets also emphasized Sánchez’s insistence that Spain’s stance remains within international legality, with El Mundo quoting him: “The position of the Government of Spain is one of absolute cooperation with the allies, but always within the framework of international law.”

In the same reporting, Sánchez argued Spain is a reliable NATO partner, saying in El Mundo that “We are good NATO allies, we have forces deployed in eastern Europe to defend territorial integrity.”

He also tied Spain’s defense spending to obligations, saying in El Mundo that “for the first time since 2014, we have managed to reach that 2.1%.”

The dispute is linked to Spain’s refusal to allow US aircraft to use its bases or airspace for attacks on Iran, a point DW states directly when it says “Spain — along with Italy and France — did not allow US aircraft to use its bases or airspace to attack Iran.”

The reported Pentagon email, described by Reuters in multiple accounts, frames the pressure campaign around perceived non-cooperation during the Iran war and repeatedly returns to ABO—access, basing, and overflight rights.

“Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez on Friday said he was "not worried" after a report suggested the US is considering expelling Spain from NATO for failing to support American operations in the war with Iran”

DW

Firstpost says the Reuters report described a leaked email outlining plans to push allies into acknowledging that NATO has not supported the US in the Iran war and to convince them to suspend Spain from the group.

It also states that the policy options are detailed in “a note prepared by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy adviser,” and that Colby expressed frustration at allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States ABO for the Iran war.

Firstpost further quotes the email’s framing that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for NATO.”

DW adds that the internal Pentagon email outlines possible measures targeting NATO allies perceived as uncooperative, including suspending Spain from NATO and a review of the US stance on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands.

The Pentagon’s posture is also conveyed through Kingsley Wilson, who in DW is quoted saying: “despite everything that the United States has done for our NATO allies, they were not there for us.”

DW then quotes Wilson’s warning that “The War Department will ensure that the President has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do part.”

While NATO’s legal position is emphasized, European leaders and EU institutions shifted toward contingency planning and calls for unity as Trump’s criticism intensified.

DW reports that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said NATO “must remain united,” and added: “We must work to strengthen NATO's European pillar ... which must clearly complement the American one.”

El Mundo

El Mundo similarly quotes Meloni arriving at the Nicosia meeting and saying, “I do not see it positively. I think NATO must remain united, it is a strength element we have in this context and we have to work to strengthen NATO,” she said.

The Guardian describes EU leaders looking to a “little-known mutual assistance pact” as Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO intensifies, with Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides saying the European Commission “will prepare a blueprint” on how the bloc will respond if the mutual assistance clause is triggered.

The Guardian quotes Christodoulides saying they discussed “the mutual defence clause, article 42.7 of the EU treaty,” and it also quotes European Council president António Costa: “We are designing the handbook [on] how to use this mutual assistance clause.”

The Guardian includes a concrete reference point for how the clause has been used before, stating: “There had already been “a test case” in Cyprus,” referring to “a recent drone strike on a British base on the island at the start of the latest Middle East conflict.”

It also notes that France is the only country to have triggered article 42.7 after the 2015 Paris attacks, when militants killed 130 people in bars, restaurants, a stadium and at the Bataclan concert hall.

In the same Guardian reporting, Kaja Kallas is quoted saying she was “puzzled” by US criticism and that the bloc met requests with “exactly what we are able to offer.”

Across the reporting, the immediate takeaway is that NATO says expulsion or suspension is not foreseen, but the United States is still described as exploring punitive or leverage-based options short of treaty change.

“"The NATO founding treaty does not contemplate any mechanism for the suspension of membership or expulsion”

El Mundo America

AP’s Orlando Sentinel account says the Associated Press “hasn’t seen the email or had confirmation of its content,” while still reporting that NATO’s headquarters told it: “NATO’s Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership, or expulsion.”

El Mundo America

The Orlando Sentinel piece also states that NATO operates by consensus and that “all 32 member countries must agree for it to act,” while noting that “nations may leave of their own accord one year after notifying the other allies.”

Time similarly quotes NATO: “NATO’s Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership, or expulsion,” and it reports that TIME reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

Even outlets that discuss the legal impossibility still describe pressure tools being considered, with Inkorr stating that “NATO lacks any formal procedures for suspending or expelling member states, including Spain,” and adding that the alliance’s founding treaty contains “no clauses allowing for the suspension or removal of members.”

Firstpost and DW both describe the Pentagon email as including options beyond suspension, including reviewing the US stance on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands, and DW reports that a German government spokesperson said: “Spain is a member of NATO. And I see no reason why that should change.”

The dispute also intersects with EU security planning, as the Guardian reports leaders tasked the European Commission to prepare a blueprint on article 42.7, while Orlando Sentinel reports EU leaders debated “how best to use European lawsto come to each other’s aid should one of them come under attack.”

In parallel, the Pentagon’s messaging continues to emphasize reciprocity and leverage, with Kingsley Wilson quoted in DW saying “they were not there for us” and warning that “The War Department will ensure that the President has credible options.”