Listen to the article
Republican lawmakers Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah are spearheading a legislative effort to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), calling the alliance an outdated Cold War relic that burdens American taxpayers and risks entangling the nation in foreign conflicts.
Massie introduced House Resolution 6508 on Tuesday, which would trigger Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty to remove the U.S. from the alliance. “NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries,” Massie announced on social media platform X.
The Kentucky congressman’s bill serves as companion legislation to Lee’s “Not a Trusted Organization Act,” or “NATO Act,” introduced earlier this year in the Senate. Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has already pledged to co-sponsor Massie’s House version.
In his justification for the proposed withdrawal, Massie emphasized historical context: “NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars.”
The legislation invokes founding principles in making its case. “Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket—especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,” Massie stated in a press release.
The proposed legislation relies specifically on Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides a mechanism for member nations to exit the alliance after it has been in force for twenty years. The bill would require the President to provide formal notice of withdrawal within 30 days of the act’s passage, initiating a one-year countdown to official departure.
Beyond formally ending U.S. membership, the bill takes aim at NATO financing as well. The legislation explicitly prohibits any U.S. funds from being “used to fund, directly or indirectly, United States contributions to the common-funded budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including the civil budget, the military budget, or the Security Investment Program.”
This push to exit NATO represents one of the most concrete legislative attempts to fundamentally alter America’s relationship with the 75-year-old military alliance that has served as the cornerstone of Western security policy since 1949. While critics of NATO have long questioned member nations’ defense spending levels, pursuing complete withdrawal marks a significant escalation in that criticism.
The timing of this legislation comes amid ongoing debates about the future of transatlantic security, especially as European nations confront both internal challenges and evolving geopolitical threats. A recent White House roadmap reportedly suggested Europe could be “unrecognizable” within 20 years due to migration patterns, raising questions about long-term strategic partnerships.
This isolationist approach to international alliances aligns with a growing segment of Republican lawmakers who advocate for an “America First” or, as Massie has characterized it, an “America Only” foreign policy. This perspective views international organizations and commitments with skepticism, prioritizing domestic interests over global engagement.
The legislation faces significant hurdles to passage, as NATO enjoys broad bipartisan support among congressional leadership and the foreign policy establishment. Most military experts consider the alliance a critical component of American national security strategy and global influence.
NATO currently comprises 32 member countries, with Finland and Sweden being the most recent additions in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Despite criticisms of unequal burden-sharing, defenders of the alliance point to its success in deterring major conflicts in Europe and providing a framework for coordinated Western security policy for over seven decades.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
While the costs of NATO membership are worth examining, I’m not convinced that withdrawing is the right solution. This alliance has been a cornerstone of transatlantic security for decades. We should be cautious about dismantling it.
I’m skeptical of the assertion that NATO is a ‘Cold War relic.’ The alliance has evolved to address contemporary security threats. Withdrawing could isolate the US and embolden adversaries. This merits serious scrutiny.
Withdrawing from NATO is a high-stakes gamble. The US has benefited enormously from the stability and collective defense that the alliance provides. I worry that this move could undermine American global influence and leadership.
This is a bold and controversial move by Massie. Withdrawing from NATO would be a seismic shift in US foreign policy with far-reaching implications. I’ll be closely following the debate and analysis around this proposal.
As someone who follows geopolitics, I have mixed feelings about this proposal. NATO has its flaws, but it’s also provided crucial stability and deterrence in Europe. Withdrawing could create a dangerous power vacuum.
While I can appreciate the concern over the costs of maintaining NATO, this alliance has played a crucial role in preserving stability and deterring aggression in Europe for decades. Unilaterally withdrawing could have serious consequences.
That’s a fair point. NATO membership has significant strategic value that shouldn’t be overlooked. Any changes would need to be thoroughly evaluated.
This is certainly a controversial proposal. Withdrawing from NATO would have major geopolitical and economic implications that deserve thorough consideration. I’m curious to hear the arguments on both sides of this issue.
I agree, this is a complex topic that requires careful analysis. It’s important to weigh the potential benefits and risks for US security and the global order.
Interesting move by Massie and Lee. Withdrawing from NATO is a major foreign policy shift that deserves robust public debate. I’m curious to see how this proposal is received in Congress and by the administration.
This is an intriguing proposal, but I have significant reservations. NATO has been a pillar of US foreign policy for over 70 years. Abandoning it could have severe geopolitical consequences that need to be carefully weighed.