Does the Constitution Allow the President to Withdraw America from NATO?
Congress says he can't. The Constitution says otherwise. And even without formal withdrawal, a President has broad power to end America’s role as Europe’s sugar daddy.
by Rod D. Martin
April 6, 2026
The President’s position has long been that American allies must be partners, not dependents. They must do their part to defend themselves, and to be allies, they also must do their part to defend us. The Trump Doctrine may be “Commerce, Not Chaos”, but a key corollary is “No freeloaders!”
That hasn’t sat well with Canada and Europe.
The other 31 members of NATO have long paid just 29.5 percent of the alliance’s defense costs. In the last year, they have finally reached the two percent-of-GDP minimum commitment they agreed to decades ago. Yet the truth remains that in the past decade, Germany — the world’s third largest economy, which until recently charged the U.S. four times the auto tariff we charged them — trained its soldiers with broomsticks because it wouldn’t pay for rifles. And just recently we learned that British frigates cannot operate in warm water, making them useless to escort the oil Britain imports from the Persian Gulf.
That’s not surprising for a navy that now has almost twice as many admirals as warships. But it’s extremely annoying. Why should America foot the bill to defend rich countries who refuse to defend themselves? It’s one thing to help them, it’s another to let them move into our basement. It’s pathetic.
But that’s a discussion of current capability, supposedly addressed by the alliance’s new commitment (at President Trump’s urging) to raise defense spending by 250 percent. Seems like a victory, right?
Wrong.
Since the launch of the Iran war, America’s so-called allies have actively obstructed U.S. operations at every turn. They have refused to allow U.S. forces to use U.S. bases in their countries. They have refused overflight rights for U.S. aircraft. When the President asked not for combat troops or fighter jets but just a handful of minesweepers and frigates to protect tankers carrying European oil, Berlin actively mocked him; virtually all refused.
Note well the sense of abject entitlement. Not only may Europe make itself dependent on Russian and Middle Eastern energy supplies, the United States is obliged somehow to enable those idiotic choices. Could Europe be a good partner and buy American oil and gas? Yes, and they’re beginning to. But not before they sent twice as much money to Moscow for energy as to Kiev for military aid since the outset of the Ukraine war, all while moralizing and hectoring the U.S. to overcome that deficit for them.
And now this.
The President displayed his displeasure in characteristic fashion.
But he didn’t stop there. Last week he told multiple reporters that he’s strongly considering leaving NATO entirely. On March 31st, his Secretary of State made the case for that explicit in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity:
RUBIO: Sean, I’ve been one of the strongest defenders of NATO during my time as a United States senator because I found great value in it. And it wasn’t just about defending Europe. I said it also allowed us to have military bases in Europe that allowed us to project power into different parts of the world when our national security was threatened.
If now we have reached a point where the NATO Alliance means that we can’t use those bases, that in fact — that we can no longer use those bases to defend America’s interests, then NATO is a one-way street; then NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need their help — not their help — we’re not asking them to conduct airstrikes. When we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no? Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question: Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars, over the years trillions of dollars, and all these American forces stationed in the region if we can only use them, we can – when in our time of need we’re not going to be allowed to use those bases?
So I think there is no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded we are going to have to re-examine that relationship. We’re going to have to re-examine the value of NATO and that Alliance for our country. Ultimately, that’s a decision for the President to make, and he’ll have to make it.
It’s pretty hard to argue with that. But as was true with Brexit, Europe’s leaders simply do not believe their gravy train can end.
They have reason. The Beltway establishment is horrified by all of this. Mitch McConnell (RINO-KY) quickly joined Chris Coons (D-DE) in a joint statement assuring the world that the U.S. “will remain” in NATO regardless of what the President thinks. They base this on 22 U.S.C. § 1928f, which says the President “shall not” suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty except with two-thirds Senate consent or an Act of Congress.
The problem is, Congress cannot simply vote itself control over a core executive function the Constitution never gave it. The statute may be politically clever, but it is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Like Rubio (and Trump), I would much prefer our NATO allies step up and be true partners. America has plenty of allies, including some in NATO, who are not freeloaders, and whom America is rightly ready to help in time of need.
But never mind the policy question. Can the President withdraw America from NATO?
Oh yes. Yes he can.
Congress Has No Power to Prevent Withdrawal
Start with first principles. The Constitution gives the Senate a specific role in making treaties. It does not give the Senate, or Congress generally, a mirror-image role in ending them.
That omission matters.
