We must take Trump’s threat to pull the US out of NATO seriously

Would he? Could he? Donald Trump has again put the frighteners on NATO countries, this time relaying a story that suggests he still wants to pull the US out of the alliance. No US membership = No NATO. Does he mean it?

As The Donald tells it, during his term as President he said to an unnamed foreign leader (thought to be Angela Merkel) that the US would not come to their aid if the country was attacked but was failing to pay enough for its defence. “No, I would not protect you”, he allegedly told Merkel, “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You’ve got to pay your bills.”  

The conversation may or may not have happened only in Trump’s head, but the point was made. The Europeans were back on notice that they had better start spending.

President Biden’s reaction to the threat was “For God’s sake, it’s dumb, it’s shameful, it’s dangerous.” Indeed. But it’s also possible.

Trump’s antipathy towards NATO is not new. In his book “The America We Deserve,” published in 2000, he wrote “The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.” After becoming President in 2017, he spent five years haranguing allies for not meeting the two per cent of GDP target advised by the Alliance charter. In 2019, he took aim at NATO’s collective defence asking why America should fight for Montenegro arguing that “Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They have very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War III.” His comments revealed a limited grasp of detail about NATO’s Article 5 because if Montenegro was being aggressive and started a war Article 5 would not apply as it can only be invoked if a member is attacked.

However, he had – and has – a point when criticising member states for their levels of commitment to the alliance. For decades, most have not met the two per cent target. In 2014, only three of the then 28 members were hitting that figure and, as late as last year, only 11 of 30 did so. This year, the figure is expected to rise to 18 – a reflection on the wakeup call served by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

Trump is also not the first US president to complain about levels of spending. President George W. Bush repeatedly pressed for the Europeans to up their game, and President Obama even called some states “freeriders”. He chided them saying, “Sometimes Europe has been complacent about its own defence”, and told the Canadian parliament, “As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we’ll be more secure when every NATO member, including Canada, contributes its full share to our common security.”

However, neither man ever contemplated breaking the alliance apart with an American withdrawal. They understood that defending Europe is part of defending the US and that, if the (sometimes feckless) Europeans were abandoned, it would be catastrophic for American credibility with allies around the world. Essentially, they bought into Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” approach to international relations.

Trump may not have thought through the damage done to America through withdrawal, but that is a reason why the potential should be taken seriously. It’s possible his words are election rhetoric, but it would be complacent to assume so.

So, if he means it – can he do it?  An American president withdrawing his country from a treaty is not without precedent. Bush pulled the US out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Trump ended the Open Skies Treaty with Russia. Neither of them referred the matter to Congress even though Congress had ratified the documents when first signed.

The US Constitution requires a president to seek Senate approval for treaties but is silent on withdrawing from them. However, in December Congress passed a multibillion bill to fund the Pentagon which included the provision that “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty….. except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” President Biden has signed the bill.

So, if Trump tries, he will run into a legal problem, something to which he is not a stranger. If someone cited the recent bill and sued him for trying to leave NATO, over the course of several years, and assuming the courts would take the case, it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Quite possibly the Court would rule that Trump had acted unconstitutionally, but by then the damage would have been done. Besides there are other measures a president hostile to NATO could take. He or she could reduce American involvement in joint exercises, withdraw troops and hardware from Europe, fail to name a Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and withhold some payments into the NATO infrastructure fund.

Trump could also use the threat of withdrawal to try and force countries to pay more, or even suggest the US would only come to the aid of those who meet the two per cent GDP target. If he wins in November, we will soon find out how much of his campaign rhetoric is real.

In the meantime, he has at least concentrated minds. Perhaps we should thank him.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life