Trump Way Out Nato. Trump Has More Than One Way Out Of NATO Photo Illustration by Newsweek/Getty Images
Fears have rippled through Europe about whether the U.S. under its new steward, President Donald Trump, could abandon NATO. But Trump, a notorious skeptic of the U.S.-led transatlantic alliance, would not have to pull out of NATO to break it up.
The White House does, in fact, have many options, if it wishes to undermine the alliance. All it would take to effectively spell an end to NATO without a formal withdrawal, experts say, is for the Trump administration to slash away at the trust underpinning the very existence of the alliance.
For many, this process has already begun.
How Would Trump Pull the U.S. out of NATO?
To officially extricate the U.S. from NATO, the Trump administration would have to give a year's notice, according to the alliance's Article 13. In an indication of past confidence in unwavering U.S. commitment, the notice must be handed to the U.S. government, and Washington then informs other states of the move.
Trump would also need to consult with, and then notify, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said Edward Hunter Christie, former NATO official.
Congress also passed legislation in late 2023 that stopped any U.S. president from withdrawing the U.S. from NATO without approval from two-thirds of the Senate or a separate measure passed by Congress.
The measure, which was pushed by the now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2024 fiscal year that now-former President Joe Biden signed into law.
What Could Trump Do To Cast Doubt on Article 5?
But rather than going down this path, there are several avenues Trump could pursue that would de facto split apart the alliance without having to go through the dramatic formalities of pulling out of NATO.
"The informal process would be even easier," said David Blagden, associate professor of international security and strategy at the U.K.'s University of Exeter. A whisper from the Trump administration that the U.S. wouldn't fulfill its commitment to Article 5 and much of NATO's credibility would be "effectively dead," he told Newsweek.
Article 5 is the bedrock of NATO. It is the article of the alliance's founding treaty that commits other NATO states to help out any member that comes under armed attack, with the response they deem appropriate.
America's formidable nuclear weapons arsenal, second only to Russia's, has historically provided a powerful deterrent to any potential attack on a fellow NATO state. Although the U.K. and France also have small stockpiles of nuclear weapons, there are big questions over the circumstances in which London and Paris would debate using these weapons and deep concerns over whether they are enough of a deterrent without America's vast number of nukes.
All that would really be needed is for NATO countries to doubt America's commitment to Article 5, and also for the alliance's adversaries to question it, Blagden said.
"Already, that trust that was the heart of the relationship has begun to erode," added Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank.
"It's less, I think, about formal process of leaving the alliance," Melvin told Newsweek, "and more the doubt that begins to creep in about whether the U.S. is really going to be there."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told European leaders last month that they "can't rule out the possibility that America might say no to Europe on an issue that threatens it."
But senior NATO figures in Europe have attempted to downplay their concerns. Speaking at a summit of European leaders in London earlier this month, which did not include the U.S., NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told the media Trump was "totally committed to Article 5, to NATO." Rutte then struck a friendly tone in a White House visit to "dear Donald" on March 13.
Trump could also imply publicly that the U.S. would only defend NATO states that spent what the administration deems as enough on defense, for example, which would also hamstring the alliance, Blagden said.
Trump has repeatedly suggested the U.S. would not defend states in the alliance that "don't pay" what he deems their fair share.
"If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them," Trump said in recent remarks from the Oval Office. "No, I'm not going to defend them."
NATO states are supposed to dedicate 2 percent of their GDP to defense, a target many European members have historically fallen far short of hitting. Continental NATO members have in recent years pushed up defense spending, with most now reaching the 2 percent threshold.
But Trump and his senior officials have demanded NATO members now reach up to 5 percent of GDP. European officials acknowledge spending needs to significantly rise above 2 percent, and that the U.S. has for too long carried Europe, but shy away from committing to the 5 percent figure that is simply unrealistic for many countries at the moment.
"You could go into very negative scenarios of betrayal, without the U.S. being formally outside of NATO, and that is the terrifying thing that European governments have to contend with now," Christie told Newsweek.
Military Pullback in Europe
Militarily, Trump could rescind the large presence the U.S. military has for decades maintained in Europe without making formal pronouncements about NATO. The U.S. has already said it is refocusing its attention on China, but this pivot has come with a tone of derision toward America's historic allies and a thaw with Moscow, to the horror of NATO members perched in Russia's shadow.
He could slice away at the tens of thousands of active U.S. personnel stationed across Europe, largely concentrated in central Europe. Trump could also go for a strategy outlined by conservative academic Sumantra Maitra, who proposed a "dormant NATO," where U.S. soldiers and equipment are stripped from Europe, but the continent retains the U.S. nuclear umbrella and a naval presence.
The U.S. is thought to have roughly 100 tactical nuclear bombs deployed in five European NATO countries, including Germany and Belgium. Strike aircraft operated by European air forces are certified to carry these bombs.
Maintaining this presence while withdrawing ground forces could be a way for Americans to feel they are forcing Europe to take charge of their own defense on land, but still attempt to hold on to the deterrent of U.S. air and naval forces, said Blagden.
For the moment, though, the U.S. military offices are still there in Europe, even if the officials staffing these posts likely have questions about how they're supposed to act.
NBC News reported on Tuesday, citing two defense officials and a Pentagon document seen by the outlet, that the Trump administration is considering giving up America's hold on the role of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
Handing over the role colloquially known as SACEUR "would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance," retired Admiral James Stavridis, who held the office of SACEUR from 2009 to 2013, told the outlet.
Of the U.S. military's 11 combatant commands, five could be blended under a new plan, the two defense officials also told the outlet. The U.S. European Command and the U.S. Africa Command could be merged into one command based in Germany, as could the Florida-headquartered Southern Command with the Northern Command, according to the report.
It does look likely that the U.S. will reduce its force presence in Europe, and that remaining military personnel would be "less strongly devoted to the defense of Europe," said Christie. The U.S. might retain bases and personnel stationed there to project power into the Middle East and maintain missile early warning systems, Christie said, but not to deter Russia from attacking Europe.
"The likelihood of a very substantial U.S. disengagement, or even abandonment, of Europe in the face of Russia, is sufficiently likely now that no responsible European government can afford responsibly not to prepare defense plans that assume no assistance from the United States," Christie said.
The U.S. could also stop participating in NATO drills, reeling in how integrated American troops are with how allied countries would respond to crises in Europe. Last month, NATO held its largest military exercises of the year, and did not have any U.S. troops present.
Intelligence and Diplomacy
The absence can be felt elsewhere. In an apparent attempt to leverage Kyiv into accepting U.S. ceasefire proposals, Trump cut off military aid en route to the war-torn country earlier this month, and quickly compounded the pressure on Kyiv by severing Ukraine's access to U.S.-derived intelligence.
From now on, European planning needs to factor in how the U.S. has behaved toward Ukraine, taking this as a potential blueprint for how Washington could interact with one of its European allies, Christie said.
"Even if the U.S. has no intention of betraying treaty allies, the cut-off of aid and intelligence to Ukraine, a partner nation at war, will never be forgotten," Christie said.
The U.S. has a diverse set of intelligence relationships with different European countries, but, like NATO itself, intelligence-sharing hinges on trust, Melvin said.
The U.S. is one part of the five-nation intelligence-sharing network dubbed the Five Eyes, also made up of Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Three of its members are in NATO, and there are already indicators that former and current members of the intelligence community across the Five Eyes are concerned over how the alliance could be compromised with Trump at the helm.
U.S. officials could also stop attending certain NATO meetings, particularly those focused on the committing of forces or backing up Europe in a given scenario, added Melvin. This would send a powerful message to NATO members that the U.S. won't be coming to Europe's defense in any possible conflict, he said.
Reuters reported on Wednesday that multiple national security agencies had stopped working with European allies in working groups set up in the previous administration designed to detect and thwart Russian sabotage and gray zone attacks.
Related Articles
Donald Trump's Impact on US Birth Rates
FBI Reportedly Changes Domestic Terror Staff as Trump Blasts Tesla Violence
Columbia University Caves to Trump; Pro-Palestinian Students Fume
Trump Admin Pulling Legal Status From Migrants in New Action
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
This story was originally published March 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM.