Donald Trump has stated that he is considering withdrawing the United States from NATO, but a 2023 law requires Congressional approval for such a decision. Experts indicate that a unilateral exit could trigger a legal battle, with strong doubts about its constitutional viability
For years, President Donald Trump has been scathingly critical of NATO, including since the start of the war with Iran. In two recent interviews, he stated that he would consider taking the significant step of withdrawing the United States from the alliance.
Trump told the British newspaper Telegraph, in an interview published on Wednesday, that he would support the US joining NATO. He later reinforced that position, telling Reuters he was “absolutely” considering leaving the alliance.
The president has strongly criticized them for not being more willing to help in the war with Iran and guarantee the security of the Strait of Hormuz.
However, despite Trump’s claims that he may withdraw the United States from the alliance, in 2023 it establishes that such a decision would require the advice and consent of the Senate, with the support of two-thirds of senators, or an act of Congress.
The bill was proposed by then-Senator Marco Rubio, currently US Secretary of State, and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. It was later passed as part of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
The need for congressional approval means that even if all Republicans voted in favor of Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO, it would require several Democrats — at least 14 if all Republicans were present — to join them for the legislation to pass.
This is unlikely to happen, as Senator Thom Tillis, the top Republican on the bipartisan NATO Observer Group in the Senate, has warned against damaging the military alliance.
Tillis said in a March interview with ABC’s “This Week” that it is “factually false” that Trump could withdraw the US from NATO without Congress.
“The President of the United States cannot withdraw from NATO. That said, the president can poison the environment. He can make the alliance functionally inoperative, if he wants,” he said.
Tillis also defended NATO allies after Trump called them “cowards” for not supporting the United States. He said the president should ask his top generals if it would be a good idea to break ties with NATO.
“It would be difficult to find anyone who would defend it, because it involves enormous, enormous risks. American lives were saved by the NATO alliance, and American lives will be lost in large numbers without it”, he recalled.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a post Wednesday in response to Trump’s most recent comments that the Senate “will not vote to leave NATO and abandon our allies just because Trump is angry that they didn’t support his reckless war.”
“I thank Marco Rubio for sponsoring the bill in 2023 that requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ensure that incompetent presidents cannot act on impulse,” Schumer added. It referred to a social media post by Rubio in 2023 celebrating the passage of the law and declaring: “No US president should be able to withdraw from NATO without Senate approval.”
Can Trump withdraw the US from NATO despite the 2023 law?
According to one from the Congressional Research Service, if the president tries to unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO, the issue could end up in court.
A 2020 legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel states that the president has exclusive authority over treaties.
“In practice, presidents have often acted unilaterally in withdrawing the United States from treaties, especially over the last 50 years,” explained Curtis A. Bradley, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to CNN.
However, he stressed that President Joe Biden enacted into law the 2023 statute that determines that the president cannot leave NATO without Congressional approval.
“If Trump attempts to withdraw from NATO without obtaining congressional approval, he will be violating the law,” Bradley added.
“His lawyers would probably argue that the law is unconstitutional, claiming that it interferes with the president’s exclusive constitutional authority over foreign relations. I think that’s a weak argument.”
“Congressional involvement is required by the Constitution for presidents to enter into treaties, which suggests that this is not an area of exclusive power for the president,” he said.
*Aileen Graef, Kaanita Iyer and Aleena Fayaz contributed to this article
