Proposed 'NATO Act' Mandates US Withdrawal from Defense Alliance Within 30 Days, Cuts All Funding

This proposed legislation, officially titled the “Not A Trusted Organization Act” (or the “NATO Act”), is straightforward and radical: it mandates the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Specifically, the bill requires the President to provide formal notice of denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty no later than 30 days after the bill becomes law (SEC. 3). If you’re busy, the takeaway is simple: this bill ends the 75-year-old US commitment to the alliance and collective defense.

The Immediate Disconnect: Cutting the Check

The most immediate and tangible effect of this bill is financial. Section 5 bans the use of any federal funds to pay for the United States’ contributions to NATO’s common-funded budgets. This isn't just about big military budgets; it specifically applies to the civil budget, the military budget, and the Security Investment Program. Think of these as the shared operational costs—everything from running the headquarters in Brussels to funding shared infrastructure like airfields and communications systems. If this bill passes, the US funding stream stops instantly, regardless of the 30-day withdrawal clock. For NATO, which relies heavily on US contributions for these common costs, this would be like a major partner walking out of a joint venture and immediately canceling their share of the rent and utilities.

The Argument: Why NATO Has to Go

Before mandating the withdrawal, the bill lays out extensive congressional findings (SEC. 2) that essentially serve as the argument for why the alliance is obsolete and even detrimental to US interests. The findings argue that since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s original mission is "irrelevant" and that the US has been subsidizing European security, which in turn "disincentivize[s] European members from taking on more burden." More controversially, the bill argues that NATO’s eastward expansion created a 1,500-mile border with Russia and frames this expansion as a threat, citing Russian security doctrines. The core argument is that Europe now has the combined military and economic capacity to defend itself without the US, making US membership inconsistent with national security interests.

What Withdrawal Means for the Real World

If you have a friend or family member serving in the military, particularly in Europe, this bill could drastically change their mission and deployment structure. Currently, US troops work under NATO command structures, relying on the interoperability and shared planning that the alliance provides. Withdrawal would force a massive, rapid restructuring of US defense strategy and could leave American service members operating without the established support systems and joint planning they currently rely on (SEC. 3). For US foreign policy, this is a severe jolt, immediately removing the collective defense guarantee (Article 5) that has anchored European security for decades. This shift means that the US would no longer be automatically obligated to defend NATO allies, and conversely, they would no longer be obligated to defend the US. This is a radical change in the global security landscape, potentially destabilizing regions where the US currently relies on allies for joint operations and intelligence sharing.