Fact check: How can a country actually withdraw from NATO?
Trump’s Threats and the Context of the War in Iran
Recent weeks have seen US President Donald Trump grow increasingly critical of NATO, fueled by tensions during the conflict in Iran. His remarks, including labeling the alliance a “paper tiger,” came after European allies and other Western partners failed to commit to a naval operation to restore access to the Strait of Hormuz. In an interview with UK newspaper The Telegraph, Trump stated, “I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration.” He added, “I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin knows that too, by the way.”
The Legal Framework for Withdrawal
Under the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, Article 13 outlines the process for a country to exit the alliance. This requires formal notification to the United States, which then informs all other members. A year later, the withdrawal becomes official. While this procedure appears simple for European nations and Canada, the situation for the US is more complex due to its dual role as a member and the treaty’s custodian. The US government must notify the Department of State of its intent to leave, followed by informing other members. However, remaining as the depositary without membership would likely prompt an amendment to transfer these duties to another country.
Legislative Barriers in the US
Domestically, the US faces significant hurdles to withdrawal. In 2023, then-President Joe Biden signed a law as part of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment prevents a president from officially leaving NATO unless they secure a two-thirds Senate majority or an Act of Congress. It also blocks the use of federal funds to support such a move. “The law makes it formally very difficult for the president to take the US out of the treaty,” explained Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Legal Interpretations and Supreme Court Challenges
Legal experts note that differing interpretations of presidential authority could arise. “There might be varying views on the competencies of the US legislative branches,” Loss remarked. Any formal withdrawal decision would likely reach the Supreme Court, with the government arguing that the president holds the power to exit treaties. Additionally, the US has other laws tied to NATO, such as those governing budget contributions, personnel appointments, and export controls. These laws would face scrutiny if Washington’s departure occurred.
Effective Withdrawal and NATO’s Resilience
Experts warn that a country could undermine NATO by drastically cutting its contributions and neglecting mutual defense obligations under Article 5. This form of effective withdrawal, especially with the US’s vast resources, could weaken the alliance significantly. “Trump can’t legally withdraw from NATO without Senate consent,” said Ian Bremmer, founder of Eurasia Group. “Yet, if NATO members doubt the US’s commitment to Article 5, the alliance is already fractured in its most crucial way.” Loss echoed this, suggesting that while formal withdrawal would cause major damage, it might offer clearer signals to other members than a passive, non-committed presence.
