Every once in a while, something lands on Capitol Hill that makes even the most jaded political observers stop and raise an eyebrow. This week it was a simple, straightforward piece of legislation with a not-so-simple goal: get the United States the hell out of NATO, once and for all.
Yes, you read that right. A sitting congressman and a senator from the Republican side of the aisle decided it was time to dust off Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty and actually use it. Their argument? The alliance is a relic, the threat it was built to counter vanished thirty years ago, and American taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for everyone else’s security.
An Idea Whose Time Has (Apparently) Come
The bill is short, blunt, and unapologetic. It directs the president to formally notify NATO headquarters in Brussels that the United States is done. No more contributions to the common budgets, no more troops under NATO command, no more blank check for European defense. Just a clean break.
In an era when Washington struggles to pass even basic spending bills, the chances of this becoming law are roughly the same as finding a unicorn in the Capitol rotunda. But the very fact that it’s being introduced by serious lawmakers—and not fringe backbenchers—tells you the ground is shifting faster than most foreign-policy experts want to admit.
Why Now? Because the Old Arguments Are Crumbling
Let’s be honest: for decades the pro-NATO chorus had an easy job. “Russia is coming,” they’d say, and everyone would nod solemnly and open the checkbook. The Soviet Union collapsing didn’t really change the tune; they just swapped in “Russian revanchism” and kept the music playing.
But something funny happened on the way to 2025. People started doing math.
Trillions of dollars spent. Thousands of American lives lost in conflicts that began as “out of area” missions and somehow became permanent obligations. And for what? So that some of the richest countries on earth could keep defense spending below lunch-money levels while building generous welfare states on the back of the U.S. military?
America should not be the world’s security blanket—especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.
A sentiment echoed by the bill’s sponsors
The Numbers Don’t Lie (And They’re Brutal)
Here’s a quick reality check that even the most ardent Atlanticist struggles to wave away:
- The United States accounts for roughly 70% of total NATO defense spending.
- Several major European members still hover around 1.5% of GDP on defense—well below even the old 2% pledge they spent years mocking when it came from certain presidents.
- Since NATO began “global” operations, American taxpayers have footed bills for everything from the Balkans to Afghanistan to Libya—places most Americans couldn’t find on a map when the missions started.
- The alliance’s original purpose—deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe—disappeared when the Berlin Wall fell. Everything since has been mission creep dressed up as solidarity.
Put bluntly, the return on investment for the average American family looks a lot like buying a timeshare you can never use while your neighbors vacation there for free.
What the Bill Actually Does
Forget the fiery rhetoric for a second and look at the text. It’s remarkably restrained:
- The president must invoke Article 13 and give formal notice of withdrawal (the treaty itself requires only one year).
- All U.S. funding to NATO’s common budgets—civilian, military, and infrastructure—stops immediately.
- Congress reasserts that permanent alliances of this nature were never what the Founders had in mind.
That’s it. No grand proclamations, no insults, no drama beyond the drama inherent in telling seventy-year-old allies it’s time to grow up.
The European Reaction Everyone Pretends Isn’t Coming
Across the Atlantic, the usual voices are already warming up the fainting couches. Editorials will thunder about “abandoning allies” and “appeasing aggression.” Diplomats will speak in hushed tones about the end of the rules-based order.
But here’s the part they never say out loud: most European capitals have known for years that the old arrangement was living on borrowed time. The shock isn’t that someone finally introduced a bill—it’s that it took this long.
In private, defense ministers admit they need to spend more. In public, they keep hoping Uncle Sam will blink first. This legislation is the clearest signal yet that the blinking phase might be over.
The Constitutional Question Nobody Wants to Answer
Perhaps the most interesting aspect—and the one that gets foreign-policy wonks twitching—is the constitutional argument baked into the bill.
The Founders were explicitly allergic to what they called “entangling alliances.” They saw European power games as a trap that would drag a young republic into endless wars for goals that had nothing to do with American security.
Sound familiar?
The treaty was ratified in 1949, sure. But ratification doesn’t make something eternally binding, especially when circumstances change so dramatically. If the Soviet Union no longer exists, can anyone honestly claim the “clear purpose” test still applies?
Where This Goes From Here
Realistically? Probably nowhere fast. The foreign-policy establishment has spent seven decades building a moat around NATO deeper than the English Channel. Lobbyists, think tanks, retired generals on corporate boards—everyone has skin in the game.
Yet ideas that once lived only on the fringes have a way of going mainstream when the old consensus starts cracking. A few years ago, questioning endless wars got you labeled extreme. Today it’s practically conventional wisdom in large parts of both parties.
This bill almost certainly won’t pass in 2025. But it plants a flag. It forces colleagues to go on record. It starts conversations that were previously radioactive.
And sometimes that’s how big changes begin—not with a bang, but with a simple piece of legislation that dares to ask whether forever really has to mean forever.
The transatlantic relationship won’t collapse overnight. Europe has money, technology, and twelve months’ notice to figure things out. But the days of America writing blank checks while others write speeches may finally be numbered.
In my experience watching Washington, the most dangerous ideas are the ones that sound radical one year and inevitable the next. Keep an eye on this one.
