Fact check: How can a country actually withdraw from NATO?
How Might a Nation Exit NATO? A Fact Check Analysis
US President Donald Trump has escalated his criticism of NATO in recent weeks, fueled by the conflict in Iran. He has hinted at withdrawing from the alliance after European allies and other Western partners failed to commit to a coordinated naval effort to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran had effectively closed. During an interview with The Telegraph, Trump remarked that NATO is a “paper tiger,” suggesting its influence is overstated, and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin is aware of this perception.
Understanding the Withdrawal Process
Under Article 13 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, a country must formally notify the US to begin the process of exiting. The other members are then informed, and the withdrawal becomes official after one year. For European nations and Canada, this procedure is manageable within their own legal frameworks. However, the US’s role as both a member and the treaty’s depositary complicates its exit. As the managing authority, the US would notify its own Department of State before informing other members, but remaining in the role of depositary without membership might prompt an amendment to transfer these duties to another country.
Domestic Legal Hurdles for the US
In 2023, President Joe Biden passed legislation that blocks a president from withdrawing from NATO unless backed by a two-thirds Senate majority. This amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 explicitly states that the executive cannot “suspend, terminate, denounce or withdraw” from the North Atlantic Treaty without Senate approval or a congressional act. Federal funds also cannot be used 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, adding that Trump’s attempts might face varied interpretations of the US legislative branches’ authority.
“The government would argue that the power to leave a treaty resides with the president, and that efforts to block this are unconstitutional,” Loss continued, emphasizing the potential for Supreme Court involvement in such a dispute.
Effective Exit Without Formal Departure
Experts caution that the US could weaken NATO’s structure by drastically cutting its financial contributions and abandoning its Article 5 mutual defense commitments. This approach, though not a formal exit, could undermine the alliance’s cohesion. “Even if the US stays a member, reducing its role could break the alliance in practice,” said Ian Bremmer, founder of Eurasia Group, in a post on X. “Trump cannot legally exit NATO without Senate consent,” he added, highlighting the necessity of legislative backing.
Loss acknowledged that formal withdrawal would cause “tremendous damage” to NATO but noted it might be preferable to a non-committed membership. “At least such a move would provide clarity and advance notice to other members,” he stated, underscoring the importance of transparency in alliance dynamics.
