Can Donald Trump singlehandedly withdraw the US from NATO?

Despite Trump’s claims that he can withdraw the United States from the alliance, a law passed by Congress in 2023 says the move would require the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of senators in agreement, or an act of Congress.

The bill was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio, who is now the US secretary of state, and Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. It was later passed as part of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

The requirement for congressional approval means that even if all Republicans voted with Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO, it would require several Democrats — at least 14 if all Republicans are present — to join them to pass the legislation.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

pdockal · 56-60, M

A president might not officially exit the treaty but could still cripple US participation by ordering the withdrawal of troops from Europe or refusing to send military forces to assist allies under Article 5.

previous presidents have withdrawn from treaties without congressional approval,

ElwoodBlues · M

@pdockal By law, NATO is different. tRump can't withdraw from NATO singlehandedly.

In 2023, Congress passed, and then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed into law, legislation barring any U.S. president from suspending, terminating, denouncing or withdrawing the United States from the treaty that established NATO unless the withdrawal is backed by a two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate.

The legislation was introduced as an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, a massive annual bill setting policy for the Pentagon. The amendment's lead sponsors were Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and then-Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Also, if tRump gives illegal orders to his generals, they must, by law, refuse the illegal orders. Violating our treaty obligations sounds illegal to me. Plus, money for the withdrawal must be specifically allocated by Congress. No withdrawal money is in any defense budget; instead, supporting our allies is what has been budgeted.

pdockal · 56-60, M

@ElwoodBlues

You need to do your research

What i posted can be done by the president
Previous presidents have withdrawn from treaties without congressional approval so there is prestent
general could be charged withwillful disobedience(Article 90),failure to obey an order(Article 92), or evenmutiny/sedition(Article 94)

ElwoodBlues · M

@pdockal You need to do your research

Congress passed, and the president signed, a special law regarding NATO. What previous presidents might have done regarding other treaties is irrelevant to the current law in force regarding NATO.

general could be charged

And that general might well win in court. And the general might make a case about lack of funding for the withdrawal, and funding allocated for support of allies.

pdockal · 56-60, M

@ElwoodBlues

Previous attempts by Congress to restrict treaty withdrawals, such as for the "Open Skies" treaty, were disregarded by the executive branch based on the argument that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

the 2023 law (Section 1250A of the NDAA) requiring congressional approval for a U.S. NATO withdrawal has been challenged, primarily in legal theory and by the Executive branch, which argues it is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential power. While no lawsuit has yet blocked this specific 2023 law, it was designed to counter the executive branch's 2020 claim of unilateral withdrawal authority

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued in 2020 that the President has exclusive authority to withdraw from treaties.

If a president attempts to bypass the 2023 law, legal experts predict an immediate legal challenge regarding the separation of powers, though courts have historically viewed treaty withdrawals as "political questions

The 2023 law is the first statutory prohibition of unilateral presidential withdrawal from a treaty, specifically aimed at preventing a NATO exit. It forces a direct confrontation between Congress and the President, making it more likely that courts would address the merits of a challenge compared to previous, less definitive cases likeGoldwater v. Carter(1979).

ElwoodBlues · M

@pdockal Was there a specific law keeping us in the Open Skies treaty? No, there was not. So the case is different from NATO.

Also, you may have noticed that tRump's DoJ has been losing a lot of cases as of late. His shutdown of VOA was reversed, as was his funding cut to public broadcasting. tRump's Mar 2025 "Executive Order 14248—Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" died in court as well. And tRump lost Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges.

Whether it's because the DoJ is overstressed, or poorly led, or suffered a terrible brain drain (likely all 3) it has seen a large number of tRump orders reversed. Withdrawal from NATO in violation of Sec 1250A may be the same.

Northwest · M

@pdockal

Previous attempts by Congress to restrict treaty withdrawals, such as for the "Open Skies" treaty, were disregarded by the executive branch based on the argument that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

the 2023 law (Section 1250A of the NDAA) requiring congressional approval for a U.S. NATO withdrawal has been challenged, primarily in legal theory and by the Executive branch, which argues it is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential power. While no lawsuit has yet blocked this specific 2023 law, it was designed to counter the executive branch's 2020 claim of unilateral withdrawal authority

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued in 2020 that the President has exclusive authority to withdraw from treaties.

If a president attempts to bypass the 2023 law, legal experts predict an immediate legal challenge regarding the separation of powers, though courts have historically viewed treaty withdrawals as "political questions

The 2023 law is the first statutory prohibition of unilateral presidential withdrawal from a treaty, specifically aimed at preventing a NATO exit. It forces a direct confrontation between Congress and the President, making it more likely that courts would address the merits of a challenge compared to previous, less definitive cases likeGoldwater v. Carter(1979).

Once more, you did not do your homework. You simply asked ChatGPT. To get better answers from ChatGPT, you need to ask it the right question. And what you did here, is ask it if the President can withdraw the USA from a treaty.

What you should have asked is if the President can pull the US out of NATO. It would have told you NO and the reason why he can't is explained in the post I did to start this thread. Read it and learn.

Northwest · M

@ElwoodBlues All the MAGA needs to do, is read the post I did to start this thread. The answer is there. But MAGA be MAGA.

The specific law was even co-sponsored by Little Marco

This message was deleted by the author of the main post.

ElwoodBlues · M

@pdockal A treaty can't be made without advice and consent of the Senate. Sounds like ultimate treaty power there.

Congress has ultimate power over the purse strings. National Defense Authorization Acts are very specific. If Congress doesn't allocate money to move out of overseas bases, it can't happen.

The FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes approximately $900 billion in total defense funding, with significant allocations for overseas basing, infrastructure, and troop presence, particularly in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. The act restricts reducing U.S. forces in Europe below 76,000, authorizes million for the Baltic Security Initiative, and heavily funds Pacific base infrastructure.

pdockal · 56-60, M

@ElwoodBlues

Never say never