There’s a notion out there that President Donald Trump doesn’t much like NATO, has a soft spot for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and admires authoritarians that drive globalists nuts. All that’s about to be tested in a perhaps surprising place: Romania, a country in the grip of a major political drama that could potentially reshape NATO’s stability on its eastern flank.
On Nov. 24, the first round of Romania’s presidential elections was won by Calin Georgescu, an ultranationalist candidate who openly admires Putin, scorns the European Union and NATO, and envisions realigning Romania with Russia. Doesn’t that sound like the perfect man for Steve Bannon and the Tucker Carlson crowd?
Logic would suggest the MAGA universe should be stampeding to Romania to rally behind Georgescu, as they have done for the similarly liberal-baiting Prime Minister Viktor Orban in neighboring Hungary. From his anti-vaxxing to his religious reveries and his conspiracy theories about the moon landing, Georgescu is seemingly tailor-made for their brand of disruptive, anti-globalist, in-your-face politics.
But this is where things get complicated. Romania is no ordinary nation on NATO’s periphery; it’s a frontline state in the Ukraine war that hosts critical military assets, including the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, a key hub for NATO operations.
The country changed the law in April 2022 to allow the transfer of lethal weapons from its defense reserves to Ukraine, and has slowly declassified information regarding these supplies, although details remain sparse. The supplies include a Patriot missile defense system, APR-40 launchers and TAB-71 armored vehicles. Romania also plans to train Ukrainian F-16 pilots, has played a vital role in transit of Western military aid, and has become a crucial export hub for Ukrainian grain, particularly through its Black Sea port of Constanta.
Presidents of Romania cannot just bolt NATO, but they set the tone, and any wobble in Romania’s alignment with the alliance could send shockwaves through efforts to counter Russia’s aggression. Indeed, a Romanian wobble on NATO could very well invite Putinesque aggression against Moldova as well. The stakes are too high for geopolitical opportunism, ideological gamesmanship or wacky Trumpian madness.
Complicating matters, Georgescu’s apparent rise has already been tarnished by scandal. In a groundbreaking move, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the results of the first round (and delayed the second, where two candidates face off) after intelligence services presented evidence of massive Russian interference. Tens of millions of impressions on TikTok, linked to Moscow, were found to have illegally supported Georgescu’s campaign.
Needless to say, this unprecedented pushback against Russian election meddling marks a stark contrast to the West’s previous responses to similar interference. From Brexit to Trump’s own election, Russia’s disruptions were met with confusion, haplessness, convoluted and inefficient investigations and denial. Romania took decisive action.
Was it a good move? I first visited Romania, the country of my parents’ birth, as democracy was starting off, in 1990, weeks after the violent overthrow of communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. I stayed, as the Associated Press correspondent, for almost four years—a magical and exciting period during which democracy was slowly built. The country was finally allowed into the European Union in 2007. This year, on Jan. 1, it was finally made part of the Schengen zone, allowing continental border-control-free travel—a sort of full membership. Around the corner lies adoption of the euro currency.
So, this is not a club that is supposed to overturn inconvenient elections. But the stakes are about to rise further still: The Constitutional Court must decide whether Georgescu should be banned from the re-run of the election, which now has been set for May 4.
The question of banning a candidate is fraught with democratic risks, even under extraordinary circumstances. Another ultranationalist candidate was disqualified just before the initial vote, and while the decision was legal, it raised concerns about setting a precedent that could be seen as undemocratic, and may have only strengthened Georgescu. On the other hand, allowing a candidate who has demonstrably benefited from Russian interference to remain on the ballot undermines the integrity of Romania’s democracy and its NATO commitments. It could also lead to violence.
The ideal resolution is clear: Georgescu should be allowed to run and lose decisively. Such an outcome would affirm Romania’s democratic principles while delivering a robust rejection of Russian meddling. But the risk of his victory, backed by continued foreign interference, remains significant.
It is, basically, a gamble that attaches to a philosophical question that few of us would necessarily answer honestly: Is our fidelity to democracy such that we will accept any result at all, without being willing to game the system a tiny little bit? I recently attended a journalism conference in Romania, and the question is on people’s minds.
Romania’s Western allies can help. The United States, in particular, has a vital role to play.
The Trump administration’s track record on these issues is, of course, not encouraging to say the least. Trump’s admiration for Putin, coupled with his ambivalence toward NATO, sent mixed signals to both allies and adversaries during his first presidency. His failure to strongly condemn Russian interference left an unsettling impression of tacit approval. Now, the U.S. must make its position clear: Romania’s democracy and its role as a NATO member are vital, and any foreign meddling in its elections is unacceptable.
As for Romania, how its institutions navigate the next steps—whether by banning Georgescu or allowing him to run in a free and fair election—will be a test of the nation’s democratic resilience. Either way, the international community must back Romania in this critical moment.
In countries like Romania, elections are not just about a candidate or party. They are a litmus test for the West’s ability to confront Russian interference and stand up to the authoritarian world in general, upholding the principles that underpin NATO and the European Union. As Georgescu’s fate hangs in the balance, so too does the credibility of democratic institutions in the face of foreign meddling.
The stakes are too high for anything less than full-throated defense of democracy. The question, is ever, is what democracy exactly means.
Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem and the author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
The post Romania Election Drama Tests Trump’s Affinity for Authoritarians appeared first on Newsweek.
