Trump Is Considering Pulling the US Out of NATO. Here Is What That Actually Means
Story By -
Shaurya Thakur 2026-04-02 US NATO exit, Trump news 20
On April 1, 2026, US President Donald Trump told Reuters that he was "absolutely" considering withdrawing the United States from NATO. He had said something similar the day before to Britain's Daily Telegraph, calling the alliance a "paper tiger" and saying his reconsideration of US membership had gone "beyond reconsideration." The statement was not a passing comment. It was a deliberate signal, timed to coincide with a primetime address to the nation on the Iran war.
The reaction was immediate. Governments across Europe issued statements. Senators from both parties spoke out. Legal experts weighed in on whether Trump could actually do it. And across the world, people who had perhaps never thought much about NATO started asking a very simple question: what exactly is this alliance, and why does it matter so much?
What Is NATO and Why Did It Exist in the First Place
NATO — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — was founded in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II, when the United States, Canada, and ten European nations signed the Washington Treaty. The idea was straightforward: if any one of the member countries was attacked, all the others would treat it as an attack on themselves. This principle, written into Article 5 of the treaty, became the foundation of Western security for the next seven decades.
The alliance was designed primarily as a deterrent against Soviet military aggression in Europe. Over the decades, it expanded from those original twelve members to thirty-two, absorbing countries from Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended and, most recently, Finland in 2023 and Sweden in 2024. Article 5 has been invoked only once in the alliance's history — after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, when NATO allies stood with America and supported its military campaign in Afghanistan.
What Has Changed: The Iran War and the Strait of Hormuz
Trump's frustration with NATO in 2026 is rooted in a specific conflict. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran in what the administration called Operation Epic Fury. The Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway through which roughly 20 percent of the world's oil passes — was effectively closed by Iran in retaliation, triggering a sharp rise in global crude prices of nearly 50 percent in just over a month.
Trump called on NATO allies to send warships and assist in reopening the strait. They declined. European nations denied US military aircraft permission to use their bases for strikes on Iran. France's junior army minister made clear that NATO was a Euro-Atlantic defense alliance and that operations in the Strait of Hormuz "would be a breach of international law." Germany reaffirmed its NATO commitment but would not join the military action. Poland called for calm.
Trump's response was to label European allies "cowards." He called NATO a "paper tiger." He told struggling allies to "build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just take it." And eventually, he said he was "absolutely" considering leaving the alliance entirely.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who, as a senator in 2023, had championed a law preventing any president from withdrawing from NATO without congressional approval — pivoted. He told Fox News that the US-NATO relationship would have to be "reexamined" once the Iran conflict concluded.
Can Trump Actually Leave NATO?
This is where things become constitutionally complicated. In 2023, Congress passed a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act that explicitly barred any US president from withdrawing from NATO without either a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate or a separate act of Congress. The bill was co-sponsored by Tim Kaine and, notably, Marco Rubio himself. President Joe Biden signed it into law.
Under this law, even if every Republican senator voted with Trump, at least fourteen Democrats would need to join them to reach the two-thirds threshold required. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made clear the Senate would not vote to leave NATO. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican and the top member of the bipartisan NATO Observer Group, said it was "factually not true" that Trump could withdraw without Congress, adding that while the president could not formally exit, he could "poison the well" and make the alliance "functionally defunct if he wants to."
Trump himself has indicated he believes he does not need Congress, claiming Article II of the Constitution gives him sufficient executive authority over foreign policy and treaties. Legal experts are divided. A 2020 Justice Department opinion states the president does have exclusive authority over treaties. But that opinion must be weighed against a law passed by Congress specifically to prevent this exact scenario. Curtis Bradley of the University of Chicago Law School noted that if Trump attempted to withdraw without congressional approval, he would be violating the statute — and the resulting legal battle would be unprecedented.
NATO's own Article 13 adds another layer: any member may withdraw one year after giving formal notice of denunciation to the US government. So even if Trump found a legal path, actual withdrawal would take at minimum a year from that point.
What the Allies Are Saying
Europe is not waiting passively. Finland's President Alexander Stubb told Trump that a "more European NATO" was already taking shape, with the continent shouldering more responsibility. Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz noted that there was no NATO without the United States — but also no American power without NATO. Germany remained committed to the alliance. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would act in his country's interest regardless of the "noise."
Senators Chris Coons and Mitch McConnell issued a joint bipartisan statement: "The United States joined NATO in 1949 when the Senate voted to ratify the NATO treaty, and the United States will remain in it."
Former officials and defence experts have warned that even the suggestion of withdrawal does damage. Ilaria Di Gioia, a senior lecturer in American law at Birmingham City University, told Time magazine that the mere idea of a US exit erodes trust, weakens deterrence, shakes European security planning, and emboldens adversaries. François Heisbourg of the International Institute for Strategic Studies called Trump's statements a "very disturbing" new step, warning that Ukraine would be the first casualty of any real weakening of the alliance.
What This Means for India
India has historically maintained a policy of strategic autonomy, keeping a careful distance from military alliances like NATO while building relationships with both Western and non-Western powers. But the instability that a weakened or fractured NATO would produce is not contained within the Euro-Atlantic region.
A NATO without the US, or a NATO made "functionally defunct" by American disengagement, would accelerate European defence spending dramatically. It would reshape global arms markets. It would change the balance of leverage Russia holds over Central Asia and beyond. And it would send a signal to every alliance structure in the Indo-Pacific that American security guarantees are conditional and reversible.
India's foreign policy establishment will be watching this situation closely. The country navigated the Cold War on its own terms. It will need to navigate this new period of Western fracture on its own terms, too. What is clear is that the world's most consequential military alliance is facing the most serious internal crisis of its 77-year history — and the outcome will affect everyone, not just the thirty-two countries that signed the original treaty.
References:
