The Baku Network website published an article about NATO’s expectations regarding the possible US withdrawal from the alliance
Day.Az presents the full text of the article:
When Congress passed legislation in 2023 requiring Senate or Congressional approval for the United States to leave NATO, supporters of the alliance hailed it as a victory. But if Donald Trump returns to the White House, this mechanism could be seriously tested - and it may be easier to circumvent than it seems.
Law against presidential powers
In 2023, Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation that would require any decision to withdraw from NATO to be confirmed either by a two-thirds vote of the Senate or by a separate act of Congress. This provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, signed by Joe Biden.
However, as experts note, this law does not solve all possible problems. Scott Anderson, a senior editor at Lawfare and a Brookings Institution scholar, said the document creates a direct constitutional confrontation between Congress and the president if the latter chooses to ignore the restrictions.
“It’s not a clear-cut issue,” Anderson says. “Congress can tell the president, ‘You can’t do this,’ but if the president ignores the law, it becomes a fight that will likely end up in court.”
Judicial uncertainty
The key problem is that the US Supreme Court has traditionally avoided resolving institutional disputes between branches of government, treating them as political issues. University of Chicago law professor Curtis Bradley notes that litigation requires a party with standing to sue.
To strengthen the law, experts say Congress could add provisions that specifically allow for legal action if violations occur. This could make it more likely that Congress’ rights will be established in court.
Alternative Scenarios
Anderson suggests that, in addition to Congress, other parties could act as plaintiffs, for example, the military or citizens who own real estate in NATO countries. But their legal basis is less clear.
Even if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it remains unclear what the decision will be. It’s “legal territory fraught with uncertainty,” Anderson said. Congress has never initiated a direct legal confrontation with the president over withdrawing from an international treaty, and the parties have no precedent to fall back on.
Trump and precedents
Donald Trump, known for his skepticism of NATO, has previously circumvented congressional legislative restrictions when withdrawing from international agreements. This makes it more likely that he will try to do the same with NATO if he returns to the Oval Office.
While alliance supporters rely on legal barriers, questions remain: Can Congress effectively defend its right to control foreign policy, and how far is Trump willing to go in his antipathy toward the alliance?
European neocolonialism: the ghost of the past in the politics of the present – ANALYSIS from Baku Network
With Trump likely returning to power, the fate of the United States in NATO is once again becoming not just a political issue, but also a legal challenge that could redefine the balance of power in the country.
Leaving NATO: scenarios, risks and legal loopholes for Trump
If Donald Trump returns to the White House, his skepticism toward NATO could turn the debate over the future of the alliance into a key topic of American foreign policy. Despite existing legal barriers, Trump could find ways to undermine the alliance without even resorting to a formal exit.
Legal barriers and the “one-year waiting period”
The procedure for leaving NATO requires a mandatory “notice of denunciation”, which must be sent to the remaining members of the alliance. The official withdrawal of a member state will take place only one year after the submission of such notification.
However, the legal process is unable to stop a president who is determined to undermine the alliance. Trump, Democratic lawmakers say, could undermine NATO indirectly, for example by freezing ambassadorial appointments, limiting the participation of US troops in exercises or reducing funding levels.
Democratic response: attempts to prevent a crisis
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) emphasized the importance of NATO and noted that Congress has made efforts to protect the alliance.
“Following Trump’s threats in his first term, Congress – recognizing the vital importance of NATO – acted with bipartisan consensus to prevent the possibility of a unilateral presidential withdrawal in the future,” Van Hollen said.
Senator Tim Kaine, one of the authors of the legislation aimed at protecting NATO, expressed concern about Trump’s rhetoric.
“U.S. security comes when we join forces with our allies,” he said. “Trump’s disparaging comments about NATO are alarming.”
Legal and historical precedents
This is not the first time the Trump administration has ignored legal restrictions. In 2020, the administration announced its withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, ignoring congressional requirements for advance notice. At the time, Trump’s legal team argued that the president’s foreign policy powers gave him the authority to bypass such restrictions.
“The President’s authority to withdraw from treaties flows from his constitutional role as the nation’s ‘single authority in foreign affairs,'” said Stephen Engel, legal counsel for the Trump administration.
However, University of Chicago law professor Curtis Bradley believes that Congress has the power to regulate international treaties and that the Trump administration has not sufficiently argued that such laws are unconstitutional.
“Presidents have a great responsibility to prove a law is unconstitutional before ignoring it,” Bradley said.
Real Consequences: Allied Trust and Troop Deployment
Even if the United States legally remains in the alliance, the very announcement of withdrawal could cause serious damage to NATO.
“De facto, the day you send the letter, it actually comes into force,” said Camille Grandet, a former NATO assistant secretary general.
In addition to the reputational damage, the United States will have to decide the fate of more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe, as well as the question of the military command structure of NATO, which has been led by American generals since 1949.
Trump against the Paris Agreement: is the climate under threat? – ANALYSIS from Baku Network
“We are not discussing this quietly. We are at war in Europe. Many Europeans have serious concerns that the confrontation with Russia could escalate,” Grande added.
Political threats and pressure on allies
During his first term, Trump repeatedly criticized NATO allies for insufficient defense spending, threatening to cut support. His statements left a mark on relations within the alliance.
What’s next?
Trump’s future moves toward NATO remain uncertain, but his return to the White House could trigger a crisis in the alliance. Legal barriers, while significant, may not be enough to deter a president who seeks to reshape the U.S. global role.
Against the backdrop of war in Europe and growing tensions with Russia, maintaining stability within NATO is becoming a matter not only of American foreign policy, but also of global security.
Trump and NATO: a geopolitical dilemma that threatens alliance unity
Although Donald Trump has never publicly stated his intention to withdraw the United States from NATO, his behind-the-scenes discussions on the topic have reportedly been repeated on several occasions. At campaign rallies, Trump raised the issue of insufficient defense spending by allies, arguing that the United States has no obligation to protect those he believes are not meeting their obligations. In one of his statements, he even suggested that he would “encourage” Russia to act against NATO countries that ignore the alliance’s financial goals.
According to data POLITICO in 2020, Trump, in a conversation with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, directly stated that the United States would not defend Europe in the event of military aggression. His rhetoric was based on the belief that only direct threats would force the Allies to strengthen their armed forces. Indeed, Trump claims that his pressure has led to increases in NATO defense spending by ”billions and billions of dollars.”
These statements split the American political community and the international arena. Critics, especially from Democrats and some NATO allies, say such moves undermine confidence in the United States as a key member of the alliance. However, some Republicans, including ardent Trump supporters, consider it an effective strategy that, in fact, achieved its goal – NATO members actually began to increase military budgets.
Still, Trump’s approach has raised concerns about long-term U.S. strategy. While both NATO supporters and critics agree on the importance of allies meeting defense spending targets, Trump has often presented meeting them as a condition for American support. This position undermined the principle of collective defense enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
Amid these discussions, NATO allies and the US establishment hope that existing legislation will act as a deterrent. As former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen noted, the US Congress passed a law according to which withdrawal from the alliance is impossible without its consent.
“During my visit to the US Congress, I observed strong bipartisan support for NATO and remaining in the alliance,” Rasmussen said in an interview. ”The US president, of course, can create serious difficulties for NATO as commander in chief, but a complete US withdrawal from the alliance? This is extremely unlikely.”
Still, a scenario in which Trump becomes president again in 2025 raises concerns among European allies. His repeated threats and hints at the possibility of a “reset” of the American role in the alliance call into question the future of transatlantic unity.
Trump’s approach, paradoxically, achieved short-term goals - allies increased defense spending. But his strategy of threats and ultimatums is leaving deep cracks in trust that could pose a serious problem for NATO in the future.
How could Trump’s rhetoric impact NATO members’ defence budgets and spending priorities?
To increase their defence spending in response to Trump’s rhetoric.
The potential for a Trump presidency to disrupt NATO raises questions over the future unity and strategy of the alliance. Allies may feel apprehensive about the reliability of U.S. support, especially given Trump’s past comments and actions that appear to prioritize transactional relationships over long-standing alliances. His focus on the financial obligations of NATO members can create rifts, leading to mistrust and uncertainty among allies who may feel unsupported in times of crisis.
As discussions within NATO evolve, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy approach will be watched closely. A return to power could embolden anti-NATO sentiments not only within the U.S. but also among other member states, potentially altering the dynamics of collective security that NATO has relied upon since its inception.
while legal frameworks may aim to protect the alliance from unilateral changes by the U.S. president, the real challenge lies in the political arena and the broader implications for international stability. As NATO faces mounting pressures from geopolitical conflicts and the unpredictability of future U.S. leadership, the conversations around commitment, funding, and collective defence are more relevant than ever. The alliance’s ability to adapt to changing political landscapes will ultimately determine its resilience in the face of new challenges.