Trump’s potential NATO withdrawal raises legal questions and political tensions
Back in 2018, Trump was already grumbling about NATO, saying other countries weren’t paying their fair share. He felt like American taxpayers were footing the bill. But Congress stepped in with a law that makes it clear he can’t just walk away from NATO without their approval.
If he tries to pull this off during his next term, it’s likely to end up in court. The Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties, but it’s a gray area when it comes to breaking them. There’s no clear answer on whether he can just decide to leave.
Experts say this is the first time Congress has put a law in place to stop a president from unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty. The Founding Fathers wanted a balance of power, but this situation is a bit messy. Normally, the president handles foreign policy, but Congress has a big say in defense budgets and treaties.
When the two branches can’t agree, the courts usually step in. But foreign policy is tricky for judges, and they often avoid getting involved. If Trump tries to leave NATO, the courts will have to look for past cases to guide them, but there aren’t many precedents.
The White House has claimed it can withdraw from treaties without Congress, but past cases suggest the courts might not buy that argument. There’s a famous case from 1952 where the Supreme Court ruled against Truman for trying to seize steel mills during the Korean War, saying it went against Congress’s wishes.
Experts think the courts might not accept Trump’s claim that he alone can decide to leave NATO. The Constitution doesn’t clearly state who has the power to withdraw from treaties, and Congress has shown it wants the US to stay in NATO.
In the end, if Trump tries to leave NATO, it’s going to be a complicated legal battle. Even if he doesn’t formally withdraw, he could still weaken NATO by reducing US involvement. The ripple effects of a US pullback could be huge and unpredictable.
