Could the US withdraw from NATO?

Key Concepts

• NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): A collective defense alliance where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all (Article 5).
• Article 5: The core principle of NATO’s mutual defense treaty.
• Strategic Autonomy: The ability of European nations to act independently of US military objectives.
• Geopolitical Leverage: The use of threats (e.g., withdrawing from NATO or annexing Greenland) to influence international policy.
• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint for global oil supplies.

1. The Crisis of NATO’s Defensive Mandate

The core tension between the US and NATO stems from a fundamental disagreement over the alliance's purpose. President Donald Trump views NATO as a tool for US global military objectives, specifically criticizing the alliance for failing to support the US-Israel conflict against Iran in 2026.

• The "Defensive" Limitation: NATO operates strictly as a self-defense organization. Allies refused to participate in the Iran conflict, arguing that the US and Israel were the aggressors.
• Operational Obstruction: France and Spain denied US military aircraft access to their airspace, labeling the US-led operations as "unjustified." Furthermore, allies refused to deploy warships to the Strait of Hormuz, maintaining that the conflict was not their own.

2. The Greenland Strategic Dispute

Greenland has emerged as a flashpoint for US-European relations. President Trump has long sought to acquire the territory, citing its strategic location and natural resources as national security necessities.

• European Intervention: In January 2026, European allies signaled their opposition to a US acquisition of Greenland by deploying military support to the island to demonstrate their commitment to its defense.
• Leverage: Trump is currently utilizing the threat of annexing Greenland as a bargaining chip to pressure NATO allies who have refused to align with US foreign policy.

3. The Turkey-Israel Dilemma

A significant argument for US withdrawal from NATO, supported by former Trump administration official Joe Kent, involves the potential for a direct conflict between Turkey and Israel.

• The Legal Trap: Turkey is a NATO member, while Israel is not. Under Article 5, the US would be legally obligated to defend Turkey if it were attacked by Israel.
• Strategic Realignment: Proponents of leaving NATO argue that exiting the alliance would grant the US the freedom to support Israel in a conflict against Turkey without violating treaty obligations.

4. Legal and Political Constraints on Withdrawal

Despite the rhetoric, the process of leaving NATO is fraught with institutional and public hurdles:

• Legislative Barriers: US law requires Congressional approval for a formal withdrawal from the alliance. While Trump could theoretically attempt to bypass this, it would trigger a constitutional crisis.
• Public Sentiment: According to a 2025 survey, 66% of the American public supports continued US membership in NATO, suggesting that a unilateral exit would face significant domestic backlash.

5. Historical Context and Synthesis

The relationship between the US and NATO has historically been reciprocal. The only time Article 5 has been invoked in the alliance's history was by the United States following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, demonstrating that NATO has historically served as a vital security guarantor for the US.

Conclusion: The current friction represents a shift in the transatlantic relationship. Even if a formal withdrawal does not occur, the fact that the US—the alliance's most powerful member—is openly questioning the utility of NATO has already caused significant damage to the cohesion and credibility of the organization. The conflict highlights a growing divide between the US desire for global interventionism and the European preference for a strictly defensive, regional security framework.