Security alliances are often portrayed as vital tools for advancing US national objectives. Yet alliance networks, critics charge, also carry some undesirable side effects and risks. The so-called problem of moral hazard is one of them. In this context, US Baltic allies have long been spotlighted as prime suspects that may one day rope their superpower patron into an unwanted conflict. With Washington having their backs at all times, the argument goes, the Baltic republics are free to pursue ill-advised policies and press their claims against Russia. While the charge of alliance entrapment via Tallinn, Vilnius, and Riga has been routinely evoked, it has not been rigorously examined. This study addresses this gap in the literature. The material presented speaks to the fact that the narrative of the Baltic countries as recklessly minded US allies does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. Structural factors, namely power disparity with the potential adversary, push against the logic of the Baltics undertaking provocative moves. That said, the paper concedes a half-point, namely that the US role in securing the Baltic region is not entirely risk-free and that Washington has assumed greater burdens than it anticipated during the initial alliance formation stage.