As NATO leaders prepare to gather in Ankara on July 7–8 for the alliance's annual summit, one relationship is dominating the pre-summit conversation more than any other: the remarkably warm bond between President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. While Trump has spent much of his second term berating European allies over defense spending and questioning the fundamental value of America's NATO commitments, he has consistently carved out an exception for Turkey's leader — a dynamic that is reshaping the alliance's internal politics in real time.

The numbers tell part of the story. Trump will be the first American president to visit Turkey since Barack Obama in 2015 — a decade-long gap that Erdogan's predecessor Joe Biden deliberately maintained, keeping Ankara at arm's length over democratic backsliding and Turkey's 2019 purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems. Trump, by his own account, only agreed to attend because Erdogan personally asked. "I would not have gone for most people," Trump said last week. "But he called me up. He said: 'Please, I have it in Turkey. You got to be there.' And so I'm going out of respect to President Erdogan."

The personal chemistry between these two leaders is not new — they've maintained a rapport since Trump's first term. But the strategic dividends Erdogan is now extracting from that relationship are substantial. Beyond securing Trump's presence at the Ankara summit, Turkey appears poised for far more consequential wins: the potential sale of F-35 fighter jets (barred since 2019), F-110 jet engines for Turkey's domestically produced KAAN fighter program, and the quiet dismissal of a major sanctions-evasion case against Turkey's state-owned Halkbank. The State Department has already signaled it will bypass congressional opposition to push through more than $700 million in jet engine sales.

What makes this moment historically significant — and this is an angle the wire coverage only touches in passing — is that personal diplomacy between leaders has repeatedly proven to be one of NATO's most powerful, and most underappreciated, binding agents. The alliance's internal coherence has often depended as much on the chemistry between individual heads of state as on treaty text. The Reagan-Thatcher partnership of the 1980s gave NATO the political backbone to weather the Euromissile crisis and the deployment of Pershing II missiles. The Bush-Blair bond after 9/11 was the gravitational center around which NATO's first-ever invocation of Article 5 revolved. The de Gaulle-Adenauer reconciliation in the 1960s, though fraught, laid the groundwork for the Franco-German axis that still underpins European defense cooperation today.

The Trump-Erdogan dynamic is different in character — it is warmer than most, less ideologically driven, and more transactional — but it belongs to the same lineage of personal relationships filling gaps that institutional structures alone cannot bridge. At a moment when Trump has called America's current level of NATO support "ridiculous" and has repeatedly threatened to pull U.S. forces from Europe, one of the few forces keeping Washington tethered to the alliance's summit season is, quite literally, a phone call between two men who seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company.

Another original insight worth exploring is the defense-industrial dimension of this relationship, which operates on a longer timescale than electoral politics. The F-35 and F-110 deals under discussion are not simply transactional favors — they are structural commitments. When the United States sells advanced fighter jets to an ally, it creates a decades-long dependency chain: pilot training programs, maintenance contracts, spare parts supply lines, software upgrade cycles, and interoperability requirements that bind the buyer to the seller for the entire lifespan of the aircraft, typically 30 to 40 years. This is defense-industrial diplomacy as lock-in mechanism.

Turkey's KAAN fighter program is explicitly designed to achieve defense autonomy — to reduce Ankara's dependence on foreign suppliers. But accepting American jet engines and F-35s would create exactly the kind of deep, institutionalized interdependence that makes a clean break nearly impossible. For Washington, this is a calculated bet: trading near-term concerns about technology transfer to Russia (via the S-400s still in Turkish possession) for long-term alliance integration that makes Turkey structurally NATO-dependent for a generation. For Ankara, it is a bet that the benefits of American hardware outweigh the sovereignty cost of the dependency. Both sides are playing a long game.

The congressional pushback is real and consequential. Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a consistent critic of selling F-35s to Turkey while the S-400s remain. Representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the State Department's decision to bypass Congress "a failure to even attempt to justify its decision." This domestic opposition is a reminder that personal diplomacy at the presidential level can move faster than the institutional checks designed to constrain it — and that the institutional checks are fighting back.

For Erdogan, the rewards extend beyond defense hardware. The summit itself is a prestige victory. Hosting a NATO summit is a statement of geopolitical relevance, and Ankara has long positioned itself as an indispensable power at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. Having the American president attend — and publicly frame his attendance as a personal favor — validates Turkey's role in the alliance in a way that no communiqué could match. It also sends a signal to other NATO members that Ankara has a direct line to Washington that they may lack.

The broader context for the summit adds urgency to these dynamics. According to NATO's official summit page and Wikipedia's summit overview, the alliance faces a crowded agenda: defense spending targets (Trump has pushed for 5% of GDP), the ongoing Iran conflict, the Gaza ceasefire board (on which Turkey has a seat), and the perennial question of burden-sharing between the United States and Europe. The personal dynamics between Trump and Erdogan will shape how much of that agenda gets resolved — and how much gets deferred.

There is also a fascinating subplot involving Erdogan's ambassador to Washington: Tom Barrack, a longtime Trump ally and the chairman of his inaugural committee, whom Trump appointed as ambassador to Turkey. As Ahmet Kasim Han, a professor of international relations at Ankara's TED University, noted, "Barrack is playing a crucial role as a facilitator in the relationship." This is personal diplomacy at the operational level — not just between presidents, but through networks of trusted intermediaries who can carry messages and smooth over friction before it becomes public.

The contrast with the Biden era is instructive, and it highlights how dramatically a single election can reorient alliance politics. Erdogan declined an invitation to visit Washington in 2024 after Turkey endorsed Finland and Sweden's NATO accession — a decision that analyst Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute described as Erdogan's way of "signaling to Trump, 'Hey, you are going to probably win the elections.'" That bet has paid off handsomely. The lesson for other NATO members may be uncomfortable: in an alliance where American commitment can turn on personal chemistry, investing in relationships with both major American political figures — and their inner circles — is no longer optional.

The Erdogan-Trump phone call diplomacy tells its own story. Erdogan boasted last year that "the process of telephone diplomacy between us has never exceeded 24 hours so far. When we call, the other side responds within 24 hours." For a world leader, 24-hour response time from the American president is an extraordinary privilege — one that many European NATO allies cannot claim. It is a small detail that speaks volumes about where Turkey sits in Trump's hierarchy of relationships.

As the summit approaches, the question is not whether the Trump-Erdogan bond will produce results — it already has — but whether those results will strengthen or strain the alliance as a whole. A NATO that operates on personal chemistry rather than institutional commitments is more flexible in the short term but more fragile in the long term. The Ankara summit will test whether the alliance can accommodate both modes at once: the old multilateralism of shared principles, and the new bilateralism of leader-to-leader deals.

For now, Erdogan has played his hand masterfully, and Trump has been a willing partner. The summit in Ankara will be a stage for that partnership — and a mirror in which the rest of the alliance sees its own dependence on the personal, the contingent, and the irreducibly human dimensions of geopolitics.

---

Source: Seung Min Kim and Suzan Fraser, "Erdogan's warm ties with Trump offer Turkey an edge ahead of NATO summit," Associated Press / The Washington Times, July 4, 2026. Additional context: 2026 Ankara NATO Summit — Wikipedia | NATO Summit 2026 Official Page