In US foreign policy right now, there is a growing split between countries Washington considers “grateful” and those it labels “ungrateful.”
It is no longer mainly about common strategic interests or dependable long-term alliances. The real yardstick seems to be how openly and enthusiastically countries thank America for its support — whether that means sending weapons, wiring money or stepping in during conflicts.
America is cast as the generous provider whose goodwill is repaid with complaints or demands. In the “America First” climate, this gratitude benchmark is quietly reshaping who counts as a true partner and who gets sidelined for not showing enough appreciation.
The complaint is not new. After World War I, the US lent large sums to rebuild Europe, then called the Allies ungrateful when payments lagged during difficult times. After World War II, criticisms of the Marshall Plan were common — Europeans were said to be insufficiently thankful, a charge that feels familiar amid today’s NATO spending disputes.
The list has grown longer. Ukraine is labeled an “ungrateful” burden despite tens of billions of dollars in aid to fight off Russia. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called out its leadership for expressing “zero gratitude” for American efforts, even as talks to end the war continue.
In a heated Oval Office meeting earlier that year, Vice President JD Vance accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of disrespect and of failing to express sufficient gratitude for US support.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos last January, President Trump again criticized European allies. He zeroed in on Denmark, labeling it “ungrateful” for refusing to hand over Greenland — despite what he described as America’s protection of the island during World War II, when US forces stepped in after Denmark fell to the Nazis.
Canada was also dismissed as ungrateful for US protection and economic ties, following Prime Minister Mark Carney’s call at Davos for middle-power autonomy and self-reliance rather than deference.
Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to be hammered as unappreciative free riders for not hitting the 5% defense spending goal. Trump branded NATO lopsided and ungrateful in the same speech.
The same pattern holds in the Middle East. Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, put in power with major US backing after 9/11, was labeled ungrateful once he began criticizing American decisions. Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq faced similar treatment. Once leaders advance their own agendas or openly disagree, any sense of gratitude quickly vanishes.
It is one of history’s sharp ironies. In the 1770s, the British repeatedly called American colonists ungrateful rebels for turning against what London viewed as the empire’s protection and benefits. Today, the accusation has flipped: the same charge is now leveled at allies or partners whenever they push back or question US involvement in their affairs.
The gratitude argument may sound compelling in a speech, but it flattens the complexity of international relations. It ignores self-interest, historical grievances and the domestic politics that shape how countries respond to US pressure or incentives.
Reducing foreign policy to a simple thank-you-or-else standard ultimately constrains Washington, making it harder to work with allies that have genuine differences or competing priorities.
China operates in a similar way, filtered through Confucian ideas about harmony and mutual respect. Beijing presents itself as a generous major partner, offering Belt and Road infrastructure deals, loans and aid packages, while quietly expecting deference and cooperation in return.
This approach was sidelined and criticized as backward during the Mao era, but Xi Jinping has deliberately revived it as a central tool for securing long-term loyalty from other countries. In the context of superpower rivalry, however, it can obscure power imbalances, making aid appear less like partnership and more like obligation.
A recent Japan-China flare-up illustrates why the gratitude tactic falls flat. Last November, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told the Diet’s budget committee that a Chinese naval blockade of Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, potentially authorizing collective self-defense.
China responded with protests, military drills, economic pressure and familiar accusations that Japan was rewriting history and reviving militarism. But amid the noise — including longstanding historical grievances — Beijing did not seriously accuse Japan of ingratitude. The argument remained focused on current security realities, not past favors.
The gratitude card is often a convenient dodge when alliances become strained. When partners are not sufficiently deferential, it becomes an easy justification for dialing back support or turning up the pressure.
Aid that arrives with heavy strings attached — whether the crushing debt imposed on Europe after 1918 or modern efforts to reshape governments — almost always breeds resentment. The inevitable “you’re ungrateful” complaint then follows, used to justify either withdrawal or escalation.
The longer this attitude persists, the more it erodes American influence. Demanding public gratitude from allies pushes them toward alternative partners that do not require constant applause or reminders of past favors.
Complaints about others being “ungrateful” often reveal more about inflated expectations than genuine shortcomings among allies. Lasting influence is built on reciprocity, not forced appreciation.
Eric Alter is dean of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy (Abu Dhabi), non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former UN civil servant.
