NATO Act
- Bill Number
- S. 2174
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-06T19:58:17Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled the "Not A Trusted Organization Act" or "NATO Act," aims to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by requiring the President to formally notify other member countries of the U.S. intent to leave the alliance. It is based on findings that NATO has outlived its original purpose, burdens the U.S. disproportionately, and no longer aligns with U.S. national security interests, especially after the end of the Cold War and Soviet Union collapse.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Lists 18 historical and policy reasons for withdrawal, including NATO's creation in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, U.S. assurances against eastward expansion, Russia's view of NATO as a threat, unequal burden-sharing among members (e.g., many fail to meet the 2% GDP defense spending pledge from 2014), and the argument that Europe can handle its own security without U.S. involvement.
- Denunciation Requirement: Directs the President to issue a formal notice of denunciation under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty (the treaty that established NATO) within 30 days of the bill's enactment. This notice starts a one-year withdrawal process.
- Compliance with Prior Law: States that the bill fulfills a 2024 congressional requirement (from the National Defense Authorization Act) for legislative approval before any U.S. withdrawal from NATO.
- Funding Prohibition: Bans the use of any U.S. funds—whether authorized, appropriated, or otherwise available—for contributions to NATO's shared budgets, including civil, military, and infrastructure programs.
- Severability Clause: Ensures that if any part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Mandates Withdrawal: Shifts from presidential discretion over treaty actions to a congressional requirement, compelling action without executive optionality. Previously, the President could initiate withdrawal under Article 13 but was not required to do so.
- Funding Restrictions: Introduces an absolute prohibition on U.S. financial support to NATO, overriding prior appropriations and potentially affecting ongoing defense agreements. This builds on but exceeds the 2024 NDAA's authorization framework by making withdrawal automatic and defunding immediate.
- No Repeal of Broader Authorities: Does not alter other U.S. laws on alliances or defense but specifically targets NATO, potentially isolating it from related foreign aid or military pacts.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The State Department and Department of Defense would need to execute withdrawal logistics, including reallocating resources and personnel from NATO commitments. This could strain budgets and operations, forcing a shift in focus to other regions like the Indo-Pacific.
- On Citizens: U.S. taxpayers would see savings from halted NATO contributions (the U.S. is the largest funder), but it might increase perceived national security risks if alliances weaken. Military personnel stationed in Europe could face redeployment.
- On International Relations: Could weaken NATO's unity, prompting allies (e.g., in Western Europe) to boost their defenses or seek new partnerships. It might embolden Russia by reducing U.S. presence in Europe, potentially escalating tensions in areas like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Globally, it signals a U.S. retreat from multilateral alliances, affecting relations with over 30 NATO members.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Government and Military: Executive branch (President, State, Defense Departments) must implement withdrawal; Congress gains enforcement power over foreign policy.
- NATO Member Countries: Primarily European allies (e.g., UK, Germany, France) and Canada, who rely on U.S. leadership and funding; smaller members like those in Eastern Europe may feel most vulnerable.
- Russia and Adversaries: Benefits from reduced NATO cohesion, aligning with its stated concerns over expansion.
- U.S. Taxpayers and Businesses: Potential cost savings but risks to defense industries tied to NATO contracts.
- Global Security Community: Includes non-NATO partners like Ukraine, affected by shifts in European stability.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Relies on Article 13 of the 1949 treaty, which allows one-year withdrawal after notice, ensuring compliance with international law. The funding ban could face challenges under appropriation rules but is designed to be ironclad.
- Constitutional: Raises separation of powers issues, as treaties are typically executive agreements (ratified by Senate), but Congress claims authority via its spending power and war powers. It might invite court challenges on whether Congress can force treaty abrogation without Senate consent.
- Political: Highly divisive, reflecting isolationist views; passage would mark a major U.S. foreign policy reversal since 1949, potentially damaging bipartisan consensus on alliances and influencing elections or international perceptions of U.S. reliability. The findings section injects interpretive history (e.g., on expansion assurances) that could fuel diplomatic debates.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- 2025-06-25: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Not A Trusted Organization Act — issued 2025-06-25 — PDF (6 pages)