US President says he loves Spain and its people while escalating criticism of Pedro Sánchez’s government

Donald Trump has delivered one of his strongest attacks yet on Spain, but this time there was a notable shift in his language.

While again threatening trade consequences and describing Spain as a poor NATO ally, the US President also made a point of separating the country from its political leadership, insisting that he has affection for Spain and the Spanish people even as he condemned the government’s stance.

That distinction is becoming increasingly noticeable. Rather than portraying Spain itself as the problem, Trump’s latest remarks appear aimed more directly at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the decisions taken by his government.

The comments came during the NATO summit in Ankara, where Trump accused Spain of failing to do enough on defence spending before calling the country ‘a terrible ally’ and saying he wanted to halt trade with Spain. The Spanish government responded calmly, stressing that relations between the two countries remain strong and noting that trade policy is negotiated by the European Union as a bloc rather than by individual member states.

A change in tone as Trump separates Spain from its leaders

Although Trump’s criticism of Spain is nothing new, his latest remarks suggest a more personal political strategy.

Instead of simply attacking Spain as a NATO member, he repeatedly contrasted the country and its people with the government currently in power. His message was that his dispute is with political decisions coming from Madrid rather than with Spain itself.

That approach allows Trump to maintain pressure on Sánchez while avoiding criticism of Spaniards more broadly. It also mirrors a tactic he has used elsewhere by praising a country’s people while blaming its leadership for policies he opposes.

The language is especially striking because it comes after weeks of increasingly pointed criticism of Sánchez over defence spending and Spain’s foreign policy positions. Earlier this month, Trump warned that “the Spanish are not behaving well”, but his latest intervention goes further by framing the disagreement as one with the government rather than with the nation.

Defence remains the trigger, but the politics now dominate

The background to the dispute remains Spain’s refusal to commit to NATO’s new target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence, together with broader disagreements over recent international security issues.

However, those policy differences now appear almost secondary to the political rhetoric.

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump claimed Spain was not contributing enough and said he had instructed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to halt trade with the country. Whether such measures could actually be implemented is another matter, as trade between the United States and EU member states is governed largely through agreements with Brussels rather than individual national governments.

For Madrid, the response has remained measured. Government officials insist that economic, cultural and social ties with the United States remain strong and point out that both countries continue to benefit from their long-standing relationship.

What happens next?

Could the US actually stop trading with Spain?
Not in the way Trump’s comments suggest. Spain is part of the European Union’s customs union, meaning trade agreements with the United States are negotiated by Brussels rather than Madrid. Any attempt to single out Spain would almost certainly trigger a wider EU response.

Could this affect British or foreign residents living in Spain?
At this stage, no. Trump’s remarks were political statements rather than announcements of immediate policy changes. There is currently no indication that residents, tourists or everyday trade between Spain and the US will be affected.

Is this likely to damage US–Spain relations in the long term?
That depends largely on how the dispute develops. Diplomatic disagreements over defence spending are not unusual within NATO, but Trump’s increasingly personal criticism of Pedro Sánchez risks making what began as a policy dispute feel more like a political confrontation between two governments.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he believes the ceasefire agreed with Iran on June 17 is “over,” and suggested breaking all communication with authorities of the Islamic Republic following an exchange of strikes between both countries. But he also said that negotiators could “keep talking” if they want.

Speaking at a NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, the U.S. president answered a question about the state of the ceasefire by insulting Iranian leaders and saying “it’s just a waste of time dealing with them.”

“They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people. And they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned it’s over,” he said.

His words sent the price of oil surging, with Brent crude futures up 6% in London to more than $78 a barrel, while European stock markets lost more than 2%.

Exchange of attacks

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had attacked 85 U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait in the early hours of Wednesday, just hours after the United States again bombed various targets inside the Asian country in retaliation for Iranian attacks the previous day against three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

The new military skirmishes follow Washington’s announcement the day before of a decision that places the ceasefire agreement signed by Tehran and Washington on the brink of collapse, even more so than the recent exchange of attacks. The move was the revocation of the provisional permission that allowed Iran to export oil under the memorandum of understanding the two countries signed on June 17. That document was expected to open a path to a definitive peace after a 60-day negotiation period. However, the prospect of a final end to the war launched by Israel and the United States on February 28 is now more in doubt than ever.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said hours later at the NATO leaders’ summit in Ankara that the new U.S. strikes against Iran were “absolutely necessary.”

Iran’s joint military command, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, in turn accused the United States of breaking the ceasefire by committing “a blatant act of aggression.” It then threatened a “crushing response” and warned that Tehran would not allow U.S. interference in management of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become Iran’s main bargaining chip during the war.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament who led Tehran’s ceasefire negotiating team, also accused the United States on Wednesday of violating the truce. Significantly, Ghalibaf not only cited the latest U.S. military strikes but also the reinstatement of the ban on selling oil and Israeli attacks in Lebanon, a country Iran insisted should be included in the memorandum signed in mid-June.

“The era of intimidation and extortion is over,” Qalibaf wrote in a post on X. “We will not bow,” he added.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume bombings unless Iran agrees to a definitive deal. Despite everything, a U.S. official said on Tuesday that the agreement was not broken and that negotiators were still working “in good faith” to reach a final deal with Iran.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Former U.S. ambassador Ken Salazar could not have picked a better moment to promote his memoir, Borderlands, which is about to be published later this month by BenBella Books. This week Salazar has been in the Mexican government’s crosshairs over the murky capture of Ismael El Mayo Zambada, leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, and his subsequent transfer to U.S. authorities two years ago. President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government accuses the man who served as ambassador during Joe Biden’s presidency (2021–2025) of lying about the circumstances of that arrest, which took place without the knowledge of Mexican authorities.

The matter resurfaced after it was revealed that the FBI had possession of the plane used to transport the drug lord and even claimed credit for the operation. At the time, Salazar denied that his government had been involved in the case, which has ignited suspicions in Mexico that Washington runs covert operations on its soil without authorization.

In his memoir, of which EL PAÍS has obtained a copy, the former official provides details of El Mayo’s capture and how it ultimately led to a diplomatic rupture with then- president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Salazar insists that the United States did not provide resources to carry out the operation; instead, he attributes Zambada’s fate entirely to the “betrayal” — in exchange for judicial benefits — of his own godson, Joaquín Guzmán López, a blood relative of Joaquín El Chapo Guzmán, who was an old associate of El Mayo. Suddenly the United States had two very valuable targets in custody, not thanks to the Mexican government, but rather because of what appeared to be a hostile action taken by one cartel member against another, writes Salazar.

Salazar also writes he did not learn of Zambada’s transfer until after it had been completed, and that it was a complete surprise. According to his account, he hurried to inform then-president López Obrador that his country had nothing to do with it, as he knew that these arrests could deeply upset Mexico’s outgoing president: “I suspected he would find it hard to accept that the U.S. government had not been directly involved in any way.” Salazar indicates that Washington was aware the issue of interference would be sensitive for the president, and insists in his memoir that the United States had no prior knowledge of this abduction and that under no circumstances did it carry out an unauthorized operation on Mexican soil, “which would have been a serious violation of its sovereignty.”

Salazar’s explanations at the time did not soften López Obrador, and they have now put the former ambassador squarely in the spotlight again. Last week it emerged that the FBI had donated to a New Mexico museum the Beechcraft King Air 200 in which El Mayo Zambada and Guzmán López, known as El Güero, arrived on July 25, 2024. Several outlets released previously unseen images of the plane’s arrival that day showing the two kingpins disembarking the aircraft, apparently surrounded by U.S. officials. The question is whether those officials, or some of them, also traveled on the plane that took off from Culiacán, the capital of Sinaloa — which would confirm Mexico’s suspicions of alleged violations of Mexican sovereignty.

According to Salazar, there were only three people on board: the two traffickers and the pilot, whose identity remains unknown to this day (the ambassador told Mexican authorities the pilot was not American and had not been hired by his government). The memoir adds that after takeoff the plane turned off its tracking systems and reappeared near the border. Only then were U.S. authorities notified. This account matches what U.S. officials told their Mexican counterparts. After the notification, Salazar recounts, the FBI office in El Paso, Texas, hurried to send an arrest team and SWAT [special weapons and tactics] to the runway, which received the Beechcraft on landing. The plane taxied a short distance to the waiting team and, after the pilot shut down the engines, the door opened.”

First out was El Güero “with his hands up.” While agents pointed guns at him, he identified himself by name and was then handcuffed. Zambada did not come down; rather, Salazar says, authorities had to enter the plane to get him out. According to his account, agents boarded the aircraft and found a figure heavily sedated, plastic restraints securing him to his seat. To their surprise it was Ismael El Mayo Zambada,” he explains. Salazar then recounts details of the meeting to which the kingpin was lured by deception by his own godson, how he was subdued and forced onto the plane. He also describes efforts he made to clear Washington of any responsibility, including a new private message he sent to López Obrador, this time co-signed by the then U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland: “It was not our plane, nor our pilot, nor our operation,” they wrote to the president, who again did not respond.

The El Mayo case, coupled with Salazar’s criticisms of the judicial reform promoted by López Obrador, shattered the bilateral relationship. The Mexican president at the time feared the operation in Sinaloa could trigger a wave of violence, as ultimately happened.

The former ambassador says one of his sources, a prominent businessman who “was a friend and confidant” of the president, told him that López Obrador was “very worried” about what information the United States might obtain from Zambada — that he might “reveal secrets” about Mexican officials. President Sheinbaum stepped in and clarified that if her predecessor was worried about anything, it was about U.S. interference in Mexico. She has again demanded explanations from Washington to clear the lingering clouds over the El Mayo case.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition