Sens. Tim Kaine (C/G-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) sponsored a bill that would require congressional approval for the president to withdraw the U.S. from NATO, a measure that was included in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
However, legal experts told Politico that Trump could use presidential authority over foreign policy to ignore that requirement.
This from newsmax.com.
Politico reported:
President-elect Donald Trump could pull the United States out of NATO without the authority of Congress despite legislation passed to prevent him from doing so.
Curtis Bradley, the University of Chicago Law School’s Allen M. Singer distinguished service professor, told Politico:
[I]f Trump were to declare the U.S. no longer a part of NATO, it’s unclear if Congress has the legal standing to file a lawsuit.
Further:
For the issue to be litigated, there would need to be someone with standing to sue.
The only party I can think of who might have standing would be Congress itself, but it is not clear that the Republicans in Congress (who will at least control the Senate) would support such a suit.
The Brookings Institution’s Scott Anderson, senior editor of Lawfare, told the news outlet:
[T]he law on the issue is not airtight.
This is not open and shut, this is about Congress telling you ‘You can’t do this, and if you ignore Congress, you’re going to have to fight us in the courts over it.’
Specifically, the question now being asked of Trump following his historic election is whether he will remain committed to NATO.
On the campaign stump, he often talked about how America would not only turn its back on its allies but would allow Russia and other nations to essentially do “whatever the hell they want” as in perhaps invade, annex, or otherwise take over a NATO member that failed to “pay its fair share.”
At a South Carolina rally in February, Trump told attendees:
I said: Everybody’s gotta pay. They said: Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us? I said: Absolutely not. They couldn’t believe the answer.
It remains unclear when that conversation occurred, or to what nation’s leader Trump made the comment, but Trump further claimed he was asked if the U.S. would support a nation attacked by Russia if they failed to meet the 2% GDP spending requirements.
Trump said at the rally:
No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay.
These words do not mean Trump would actually pull out of NATO nor whether he would forego any commitments, however, the world is uncertain.
Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School told Newsweek:
To be perfectly blunt, no one knows. He has no deep commitment to NATO and he has long argued that Europe should do much more to defend itself.
But he may prefer to stay in NATO to have influence over its policies, while complaining about what the Europeans are doing and using the threat of withdrawal to coerce them on both economic and security matters.
Perhaps, the final question that should be asked is not whether the United States will leave NATO—or even if Europe is paying its fair share—rather whether the U.S. can afford to leave NATO.
The U.S. Navy is a rusting mess that will need a decade or longer to reach its ship strength goals, while the U.S. Air Force is also struggling to fund its expensive programs. Even if the U.S. were to adopt a more isolationist stance, the military has reached recruiting goals only for the first time in nearly a decade.
Final thought: The U.S. military needs allies in NATO to stand up to current and would be belligerents. Getting NATO out of America and America out of NATO may not be “prudent at this juncture,” to paraphrase Dana Carvey doing his best H.W. impersonation.
