REPORT: Biden attacks Trump at Maryland — "He is destroying NATO and choosing Putin"

Introduction: Joe Biden steps out of the shadows and strikes without restraint

June 27 in Maryland — Biden takes the floor

On June 27, 2026, in the state of Maryland, at a Democratic Party fundraiser gala, former President Joe Biden took the floor. This was no ordinary appearance: since leaving the White House in January 2025, Biden had kept a relatively low public profile. The Maryland gala represents one of his most direct and most pointed interventions since leaving office — and one of his most frontal attacks on his successor Donald Trump.

The political context is charged. The 2026 American midterm elections are approaching. The Democratic Party is working to mobilize its base around foreign policy issues and the question of American reliability toward its allies. Biden is one of the few Democrats who can speak with genuine authority on these matters — after all, it was under his presidency that the Western alliance coordinated its support for Ukraine against the Russian invasion of 2022. His voice on these questions is not that of an outside commentator.

The direct accusations — in his own words

Biden declared: "It's not just his deliberate distortion and destruction of NATO and his choice of Putin over American allies, or the fact that he has diminished our standing in the eyes of the world more than any president in history." He accused Trump of "destroying NATO" and of "choosing Putin over American allies." According to the Kyiv Independent, Biden also called Trump a "loser" and accused him of having "made billions" since returning to the White House, calling the presidency a "vanity project."

These words are strong — unusual from a former president. An unwritten tradition holds that former American presidents do not directly attack their successors. Biden is breaking that taboo deliberately. He clearly believes the geopolitical stakes are grave enough to justify this departure from convention. Silence would, in his view, amount to complicity.

What Biden says about Trump and NATO — and what the facts confirm

The "deliberate distortion" of NATO: a record under Trump

Biden's accusation of a "deliberate distortion of NATO" is not without documented foundation. Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has: repeatedly threatened not to defend allies who do not spend enough on their own defense, questioned the relevance of the Alliance, drastically reduced direct aid to Ukraine, and adopted an increasingly accommodating posture toward Vladimir Putin. According to the Kyiv Independent, American involvement in the war became "less visible" under Trump.

A Foreign Policy article from June 29, 2026 documents that since January 2025, Trump has: "rallied Putin, called for seizure of Greenland, imposed arbitrary tariffs on the EU, forged alliances with far-right parties, and threatened to punish NATO allies for not backing the United States against Iran." That is not the profile of unwavering support for the Atlantic Alliance. What Biden calls "deliberate distortion," NATO observers call "unprecedented ruptures."

"Choosing Putin" — rhetoric or reality?

The accusation of "choosing Putin over American allies" is the most serious. It raises the central question that European allies have been asking themselves since January 2025: is Trump a reliable partner or an actor whose interests sometimes converge with Moscow's? The factual answer is nuanced — but the emotional and political resonance is considerable.

What is documented: Trump pursued a quick peace deal on Ukraine in 2025 that would have involved Ukrainian territorial concessions — terms that Zelensky and the Europeans rejected. He adopted a more favorable tone toward Putin than toward some European allies. The peace initiative largely failed, according to the Kyiv Independent, "with both sides remaining very far apart on territorial questions." Trump's ambiguous relationship with Putin is a political fact, not a Democratic invention.

NATO on the eve of the Ankara summit — a situation report

A summit scheduled for July 7-8, 2026

Biden's June 27 speech comes ten days before the NATO summit scheduled in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026. That context is crucial. European allies are hoping for a "dull" summit (no drama), according to Foreign Policy — meaning one where Trump does not provoke new public ruptures with the Alliance. The pressure is considerable. And Biden chooses precisely this moment to remind the Democratic base, and perhaps Europe's allies, of what he thinks of his successor's record on these issues.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declared after the June defense ministers' meeting that there had been "good progress" and that allies were spending "more, and better" on necessary forces and capabilities. That carefully positive formulation attempts to minimize internal tensions. But the tensions are real, and Biden says in public what Rutte must stay silent about in private.

NATO nuclear sharing: the most sensitive dossier

In the background of the Ankara summit, an extraordinarily sensitive file: according to 19FortyFive of June 26, 2026, NATO is "weighing the biggest expansion of its nuclear weapons sharing since the Cold War," driven by the war in Ukraine and "doubts about Trump." Countries like Poland and the Baltic states have expressed openness to hosting additional American nuclear weapons. Emmanuel Macron has proposed a shared French nuclear deterrence doctrine with allies.

This extraordinary development — NATO discussing nuclear expansion because it doubts American reliability under Trump — is precisely what Biden is talking about when he says Trump has "diminished our standing in the eyes of the world." When allies seek to reduce their dependence on the American nuclear umbrella, it is a direct response to Trump's ambiguity on Article 5. That is concrete proof that American credibility has been eroded.

Ukraine in the American political game of 2026

How the Ukrainian war became an American electoral issue

Since Trump's return to the White House, the war in Ukraine has become a central political marker in the United States. Democrats defend support for Zelensky and commitment to NATO as fundamental principles of American foreign policy. Trumpist Republicans have contested it as misdirected spending and a war with no direct American interest.

That divide will be at the heart of the 2026 midterms. Biden knows it. His Maryland speech is as much an electoral mobilization as a geopolitical position. But the two are inseparable: American foreign policy is also domestic politics, and midterm elections can shift the balance in Congress — and therefore the future of support for Ukraine. The stakes of this speech extend far beyond a Maryland gala.

Trump's attention turned toward Iran — and the vacuum left for Ukraine

Early in 2025, the Trump administration devoted significant attention to a confrontation with Iran — which, according to the Kyiv Independent, "turned the administration's focus" and led Ukraine and its European allies to "take the lead on security guarantees and war-ending initiatives." That shift had a paradoxical consequence: Europe was forced to step up as a security actor, developing its own mechanisms to support Kyiv.

This forced European "strategic autonomy" has long-term effects. European defense is advancing faster than it would have if Trump's United States had maintained strong, consistent support. The harm may have produced an unintended good: a Europe more capable of defending itself alone — something that decades of appeals had failed to produce. That is the necessary evil Trump represents for the West.

Biden — the return of a geopolitical specter

Biden's credibility to speak on these matters

Biden speaks about NATO and Ukraine with an authority that few potential successors in the Democratic camp possess. Under his presidency, the United States coordinated the first major aid package to Ukraine (renewed Lend-Lease Act), NATO expanded to include Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024), and the first deliveries of Abrams tanks and Patriot systems to Ukraine were decided. His record is defensible — and that is precisely what gives his criticism of Trump its weight.

There is an element of ego and personal score-settling in this speech — it would be naive not to see it. But the substance of Biden's accusations is backed by facts. NATO has suffered unprecedented ruptures under Trump. Aid to Ukraine has been reduced. The relationship with Putin has been ambiguous. These realities do not disappear because the person naming them also has personal political motivations.

The fragility of the Western coalition and the role of American elections

At its core, what Biden raises in his Maryland speech is an existential question for support to Ukraine: what happens if American voters confirm the Trump direction at the midterms, then again in 2028? Will the Western coalition hold without a solid American anchor? Can Europe alone fill the vacuum created by American disengagement?

These are questions without certain answers. What can be said: Europe is investing massively in its defense since 2022. Defense budgets have risen in almost every NATO member. Joint defense projects are emerging. But the road to full European strategic autonomy is still long — and Ukraine cannot wait for that road to be traveled.

The European reaction to Biden's speech

European capitals between relief and caution

In Europe, Biden's speech was received with a telling ambivalence. In the corridors of European foreign ministries, his words brought quiet relief: someone with real authority is finally saying publicly what European diplomats confide in private. The degradation of American support for NATO under Trump is a reality Europeans encounter daily in their negotiations and strategic planning.

But caution also applies: Trump remains the President of the United States, and European capitals cannot afford an open break with Washington. The delicate balance Europe maintains — criticizing Trump's behavior without rupturing the transatlantic relationship — will be tested at the Ankara summit. Europeans applaud Biden in private while smiling at Trump in public. That is real diplomacy.

What Ukraine observes in this American debate

For the Zelensky government, Biden's speech carries indirect political value: it keeps alive in the American debate the idea that aid to Ukraine is a fundamental American priority. Every time a former president speaks on this subject, it reminds American voters of what is at stake. Ukraine needs its case to remain in the American public consciousness — even when the incumbent administration is less active on that front.

The reduction in direct American aid to Ukraine under Trump has been partially offset by increased European support. But the offset is not complete. American defense systems — Patriot, HIMARS, precision munitions — remain irreplaceable in Ukrainian defense doctrine. Zelensky needs a favorable American Congress. And Biden is lending him his voice to try to build one.

Conclusion: Will NATO survive the Trump era?

What Biden's speech reveals about the state of American diplomacy

Biden's speech in Maryland on June 27, 2026 is a historical document, whatever its partisan dimension. It records the perspective of a former president on what he considers a profound rupture in American foreign policy. The words are strong: "deliberate distortion," "destruction of NATO," "choosing Putin," "diminished our standing." That vocabulary will not be forgotten — it will become a marker of the Trump era in diplomatic archives.

What this speech cannot change: Trump's daily decisions, his relationship with Putin, the reduction of aid to Ukraine, tensions within NATO. Biden can name the problem. Only American voters and European allies can solve it. And the Ankara summit on July 7-8 will be the next test of what that solution can produce.

Ukraine at the center of all tensions

At the heart of all these tensions — Biden's speech, the Ankara summit, NATO nuclear sharing, Kallas's sanctions — lies one simple and painful reality: Ukrainians are dying every day while democracies debate. The luxury of political debate is a luxury Ukraine cannot afford. Zelensky cannot wait for the American midterms to clarify the geopolitical direction of the United States.

What Biden, Trump, Kallas, Rutte, and every actor in this drama must keep in mind: every day of debate without additional action is one more day for Ukrainians under the bombs. The urgency is not a rhetorical argument — it is the reality of Kherson, Kharkiv, Kyiv after the night of July 2. History will judge speeches and votes, not intentions.

Europe rearming — the structural response to Trump's ambiguity

European defense budgets at a historic high

Facing Trump's ambiguity on Article 5, Europe has drawn the only reasonable conclusion: rearm. In 2026, a majority of European NATO members are exceeding the 2% of GDP defense spending threshold for the first time. Poland exceeds 4%. Germany has radically revised its constitutional taboo on military spending. France is accelerating its nuclear modernization program. European rearmament is the pragmatic response to a speech Biden chose to deliver publicly.

This transformation does not immediately fill the American gap. Procurement, training, and deployment timelines are measured in years. But the direction is irreversible: Europe has decided it can no longer outsource its security to Washington. That is the unintended legacy of the Trump presidency — an accelerated European rearmament that fifteen years of American requests at NATO summits had failed to produce.

Europe's defense industrial base rising to the challenge

European rearmament demands an industrial base capable of producing the necessary armaments at scale. Yet Europe's defense industry has long operated in a reduced mode — calibrated for peacetime orders, not for the demands of large-scale industrial war. The war in Ukraine exposed that gap brutally. Orders for shells, missiles, and air defense systems have been constrained by European production capacities.

Massive investments are underway: in Germany, France, Italy, Sweden — and especially in Poland, which has become a major defense industrial hub. Building this industrial base is the most important investment Europe is making right now — more important than any speech, any summit. And that is precisely what Biden cannot do from his Maryland gala — only European governments can.

The Ankara summit as a test of transatlantic unity

What NATO must deliver at Ankara

The NATO summit on July 7-8, 2026 in Ankara arrives under maximum pressure: deadly Russian strikes on Kyiv, Biden's accusations against Trump, debates on nuclear expansion and doubts about American reliability. Secretary General Mark Rutte must deliver a solidarity message without Trump publicly contradicting it from the same stage. That is a feat of institutional tightrope-walking of rare complexity.

The concrete stakes of the summit: maintaining the course on 2% of GDP defense spending objectives (now considered insufficient by some who demand 3%), coordination on support for Ukraine, discussion of nuclear sharing, and management of the ambiguous relationship between Trump and Erdogan. A successful summit would be one where nothing explosive happens — and that is itself a measure of the Alliance's stress level.

Rutte between Trump and the Europeans

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declared that the allies' commitment to Article 5 is "unassailable" and that "anyone who is stupid enough to attack us will face a devastating response." Those words address Moscow as much as European public opinion. But they do not resolve the fundamental question: does Trump share that conviction? Uncertainty about the answer to that question is NATO's central problem in 2026.

Biden, from Maryland, gives his answer: Trump's response is no, or at best conditional. And that conviction explains the intensity of his words. This is not an ordinary campaign speech — it is an alarm, from a man who held this world together and is watching his successor take it apart.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My editorial positioning and biases

I am Maxime Marquette, an analyst-columnist. I am pro-Ukrainian, in favor of firm Western support for Ukraine, and committed to the strength of NATO. That positioning naturally makes me more critical of Trump than of Biden on these files. I acknowledge that explicitly. In this report, I have tried to distinguish verifiable facts from editorial analysis using the marked mini-editorial system.

I did not attend the Maryland gala. I have no contacts in the Trump or Biden administrations. My sources are journalistic and public, cited in the Sources section. The Kyiv Independent has a pro-Ukrainian editorial line — which does not make it less reliable on the facts, but deserves acknowledgment in this transparency context.

What this report cannot confirm

I could not independently verify the full text of Biden's remarks at the Maryland gala — I rely on reports from the Kyiv Independent and The Guardian. I do not know whether Biden specifically called Trump a "loser" in that precise context or whether the formulation is journalistic paraphrase. I report what sources report. For direct quotes I use between quotation marks, they were found verbatim in the source articles.

My method: read primary sources, distinguish direct quotes from journalistic paraphrases, never invent a statement, acknowledge uncertainties. This report reflects the state of information available as of June 28-29, 2026.

Sources

Primary sources

Kyiv Independent — Biden accuses Trump of "destroying NATO" and "choosing Putin" over American allies — June 28, 2026

The Guardian — Biden calls Trump a "loser" and says he has diminished US standing in the world — June 29, 2026

Kyiv Independent — Tag: Trump and Ukraine — 2026

Secondary sources

Foreign Policy — Can NATO have a boring summit? — June 29, 2026

19FortyFive — NATO is weighing the biggest expansion of its nuclear sharing since the Cold War — June 26, 2026

Euromaidanpress — Tag: NATO and Ukraine — 2026