Fresh remarks from President Donald Trump have reignited one of the most sensitive questions in global security: could the United States leave NATO?

Speaking to The Telegraph, Trump suggested Washington’s membership in the alliance was “beyond reconsideration” once the current Middle East conflict settles. The comments have rattled European capitals already grappling with divisions over the war involving Iran.

The prospect of a U.S. withdrawal — once considered unthinkable — is now back in the strategic debate.

A legal path exists — but it’s far from simple

Technically, the United States could withdraw from NATO under the alliance’s founding treaty.

Members are allowed to exit with one year’s notice under the North Atlantic Treaty. But U.S. law complicates the process.

Legislation passed by Congress in 2023 prevents any president from leaving NATO unilaterally. Withdrawal would require approval from Congress or a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate — a high political hurdle.

Trump’s long-running feud with the alliance

Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members for failing to meet defence spending targets.

He has argued that some allies rely too heavily on American military protection while contributing too little themselves. At times he has even suggested the U.S. should reconsider defending countries that fall short of agreed spending levels.

Those comments have unsettled European leaders who view NATO’s collective defence pledge — Article 5 — as the cornerstone of their security.

Middle East tensions deepen the rift

The latest friction comes amid disagreements over the war and security in the Persian Gulf.

Several NATO partners have resisted U.S. pressure to support military action or join operations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial global energy corridor disrupted by the conflict.

The refusal has exposed divisions within the alliance at a moment of heightened geopolitical strain.

A move that would shake the global order

Even raising the possibility of a U.S. exit carries enormous implications.

Founded in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat, NATO now comprises 32 countries spanning North America and Europe. The United States remains the alliance’s military backbone.

Any attempt to withdraw would almost certainly trigger fierce opposition in Congress and alarm among allies who depend on Washington’s security guarantees. For now, Trump’s remarks may be rhetorical — but they have reopened a debate with global consequences.

Can Donald Trump pull out of NATO?

39 minutes ago, bannork said:

Fresh remarks from President Donald Trump have reignited one of the most sensitive questions in global security: could the United States leave NATO?

Speaking to The Telegraph, Trump suggested Washington’s membership in the alliance was “beyond reconsideration” once the current Middle East conflict settles. The comments have rattled European capitals already grappling with divisions over the war involving Iran.

The prospect of a U.S. withdrawal — once considered unthinkable — is now back in the strategic debate.

A legal path exists — but it’s far from simple

Technically, the United States could withdraw from NATO under the alliance’s founding treaty.

Members are allowed to exit with one year’s notice under the North Atlantic Treaty. But U.S. law complicates the process.

Legislation passed by Congress in 2023 prevents any president from leaving NATO unilaterally. Withdrawal would require approval from Congress or a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate — a high political hurdle.

Trump’s long-running feud with the alliance

Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members for failing to meet defence spending targets.

He has argued that some allies rely too heavily on American military protection while contributing too little themselves. At times he has even suggested the U.S. should reconsider defending countries that fall short of agreed spending levels.

Those comments have unsettled European leaders who view NATO’s collective defence pledge — Article 5 — as the cornerstone of their security.

Middle East tensions deepen the rift

The latest friction comes amid disagreements over the war and security in the Persian Gulf.

Several NATO partners have resisted U.S. pressure to support military action or join operations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial global energy corridor disrupted by the conflict.

The refusal has exposed divisions within the alliance at a moment of heightened geopolitical strain.

A move that would shake the global order

Even raising the possibility of a U.S. exit carries enormous implications.

Founded in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat, NATO now comprises 32 countries spanning North America and Europe. The United States remains the alliance’s military backbone.

Any attempt to withdraw would almost certainly trigger fierce opposition in Congress and alarm among allies who depend on Washington’s security guarantees. For now, Trump’s remarks may be rhetorical — but they have reopened a debate with global consequences.

Can Donald Trump pull out of NATO?

The US MAY HAVE TO PULL OUT OF NATO, as all their military strenght may be needed in the South China Sea. = Taiwan.

Failure to keep control of the South China Sea (Taiwan), will indicate that the "Empire of the United States of America" has come to an end.

The current US administration regards Europe from a "sentimental factor" at the most (early immigrants coming from Europe).

The current administration sees Europe only as an economical competitor that needs to be "stifled" and NATO only a an old concept that burdens the US heavily financially and militarily.

In other words: The US has lost interest in Europe.

I hope they do and let's kick out their bases whilst we are at it and build social housing on them and.or have music festivals in the hangers. Yes please.

37 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I hope they do and let's kick out their bases whilst we are at it and build social housing on them and.or have music festivals in the hangers. Yes please.

Will you be welcoming the Russians when the roll in?

13 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Will you be welcoming the Russians when the roll in?

Paul Robeson one of the greatest singers of his generation hounded for his colour and his views. Spoiler alert they won't they can't even take over Ukraine I think we'll be fine as long as we stop meddling in other countries. As an aside my two favourite athems musically are this one and the Thai Royal anthem - both outstanding pieces of heart stirring music.

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Paul Robeson one of the greatest singers of his generation hounded for his colour and his views. Spoiler alert they won't they can't even take over Ukraine I think we'll be fine as long as we stop meddling in other countries.

Ok, you can join him in celebrating Stalin. Bring your accordion.

3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, you can join him in celebrating Stalin. Bring your accordion.

More of a Trotsky fan myslef or Lev Davidovich Bronstein one of the great Jews of history of which they are many. Dark is the Night is a great folk song of WW2 still sung today and any Russian would instantly recognise it.

NATO was formed after the 2nd WW to counter the threat from the Soviet Union its a purely defensive alliance. I was in the army at times stationed in Germany (during the Cold War) the US used to refer to their bases in Europe as forward defence installations/facilities or bases in other words they were there to stop the USSR before they could reach US soil.

They were there as much to defend the US and its East Coast against the USSR as Europe.

The Soviet Union is no more only Russia is still hostile and I am sure Europe has the capability to defend itself from Russia if necessary at the moment, even more so when Europe builds up its defence capabilities as it is in the process of doing at the moment.

Though I really feel after the Putin regime has gone Europe and Russia will start to co-exist on more friendly terms.

Times change perhaps NATO is no longer necessary or fit for purpose and if the US wants to leave or Europe no longer feels it's aligned to the US or it's policies then at least let's part on friendly terms.

I agree kick the Yanks out of our bases in the UK. The illegals arriving across the channel can move in freeing up Hotel spaces. Plus in the future Wars America starts, no coalition forces will be coming galloping to there Rescue when they F k up, and forget asking our SAS to help you out.

8 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

I agree kick the Yanks out of our bases in the UK. The illegals arriving across the channel can move in freeing up Hotel spaces. Plus in the future Wars America starts, no coalition forces will be coming galloping to there Rescue when they F k up, and forget asking our SAS to help you out.

Please do, as not much would make tax paying Yanks happier than that. Feel free to move the UN out of NYC also.

Can there now be any doubt that Trump is Putin's puppet. I'm convinced the infamous 'pee videos' really do exist.

Trump has already threatened to invade a NATO nation, while his administration have a stated policy of interfering in European elections and backing far right groups.

The U.S. under Trump is an overt threat to the rest of NATO.

There is absolutely no expectation that the U.S. would abide by any obligations under NATO Treaty.

It’s time for NATO and Europe to leave the U.S.

Start by closing the U.S. bases that are in any case legitimate targets in the illegal Israeli/US war, and cut the U.S. out of intelligence sharing, Trump can’t be trusted to pass on the intelligence that is shared, he’s an overt enemy, treat him as such..

11 hours ago, swissie said:

The US MAY HAVE TO PULL OUT OF NATO, as all their military strenght may be needed in the South China Sea. = Taiwan.

Failure to keep control of the South China Sea (Taiwan), will indicate that the "Empire of the United States of America" has come to an end.

The current US administration regards Europe from a "sentimental factor" at the most (early immigrants coming from Europe).

The current administration sees Europe only as an economical competitor that needs to be "stifled" and NATO only a an old concept that burdens the US heavily financially and militarily.

In other words: The US has lost interest in Europe.

Taiwan is not going anywhere, China delivers too much stuff through Taiwan. It is also a key money laundering portal.

10 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

I agree kick the Yanks out of our bases in the UK. The illegals arriving across the channel can move in freeing up Hotel spaces. Plus in the future Wars America starts, no coalition forces will be coming galloping to there Rescue when they F k up, and forget asking our SAS to help you out.

Be careful what you wish for. The UK is incapable of defending its economic and national interests. It is not alone. Other western countries are no better. For too many years, the UK allowed its national security to be neglected. If the Falklands were invaded again today, it is doubtful the UK could defend or liberate the islands. Various MPs now serve the interests of foreign countries, whether it is an MP running for office in Bangladesh, or MPs allegedly aware of relatives/staff spying for China and doing nothing. The UK government is more concerned about remaining in power by appealing to its muslim and radical leftist voter groups to avoid their migration to the Greens, than it is in building a manufacturing base or encouraging people to work.

The USA is looking out for its national interests. Its President is responsible for the USA not for the well being of any other nation. One should not be surprised if those interests are not always compatible with those of other nations. The USA may well go the way of the UK and become a marginal, insignificant entity, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike much of the world, the USA is both energy and food independent and has access to abundant fresh water (if it plays nice with Canada). Much of the world will be facing potable water and food shortages, and energy insufficiencies.

11 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

More of a Trotsky fan myslef or Lev Davidovich Bronstein one of the great Jews of history of which they are many. Dark is the Night is a great folk song of WW2 still sung today and any Russian would instantly recognise it.

Didn't Trotsky get his head bashed in with a hammer by an NKVD agent in Mexico because he was on Stalin's blacklist? Know who else does stuff like that? Putin. The Putin team has a habit of eating its own. Yevgeny Prigozhin the former hotdog salesman and head of Wagner Group, Putin's hired killer group was a big fan of Putin, just like you. He ended up dead because he ran afoul of Putin.

NATO was for the members ,security not for war with iran

4 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

NATO was for the members ,security not for war with iran

Agreed. And in immediate post WWII, NATO was needed for a recovering Europe to defend against a threatening Soviet Union. And the only member in NATO with the economic and military resources to provide an adequate defense was the US. No longer.

Europe recovered significantly; but enjoyed the free ride still being provided by the US for its protection. All those nice social protections that the EU was able to provide its citizens, because their military defense costs were covered by the US -- meant the US didn't have the resources at home to provide these same social services to its citizens.

Trump is probably the world's biggest buffoon -- but he has called attention to many defects in US policy, NATO being the worst. So, I'll give him credit for finally, someone in power calling this out.

He did this in his first term, when he showed the financing discrepancy on NATO members, with the US paying a very lopsided amount. Some heeded, and began to pay their fair share. Others, like Spain, said f**** it.

So, it looks like the US may finally be where it should be -- no longer a part of a costly treaty that only benefited Europe, not the US. Heck, since the advent of ballistic missiles, what did NATO ever do for the defense of the US.....

You anti-US folks won't have to close our bases -- we'll do it for you, as we pack up and gladly leave. Most of us career military types never relished a European assignment -- so now today's active duty can relax. And all those active duty troops relegated to Europe can now transition to much less expensive reserve troops. Win win.

The US will be realistic -- Putin is a definite threat to Europe -- so we'll withdraw over several years, allowing the Europeans to build up their necessary defenses.

Ironic that it took an act by NATO members to push Trump to (hopefully) remove the US from NATO: To say they had no dog in this fight with Iran was spot on. Particularly the UK, who under Blair, got snookered by Bush to join in the fight with Iraq -- not again, thank you. That Trump took personal offense at NATO's lack of support for the Iranian fiasco -- is just another bizarre Trump reaction to events. But, hey, if it means we're now out of NATO -- thank you Trump for your weirdness.

I fully support the USA withdrawing from NATO. It's time for Europe to take responsibility for their own defense.

16 minutes ago, TedG said:

I fully support the USA withdrawing from NATO. It's time for Europe to take responsibility for their own defense.

If you knew how stupid that sounds, you would had been ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately you do not even understand, and will most likely never understand how Usa became the most powerful country in the time.

Just waste of energy to try to convince you, especially when we daily see how your potus operates and handle complicated world stuff like he is the big Don.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

If you knew how stupid that sounds, you would had been ashamed of yourself, but unfortunately you do not even understand, and will most likely never understand how Usa became the most powerful country in the time.

Just waste of energy to try to convince you, especially when we daily see how your potus operates and handle complicated world stuff like he is the big Don.

Why does it sound stupid. Explain yourself. NATO was created to protect Europe from the USSR. NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be dissolved.

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

Why does it sound stupid. Explain yourself. NATO was created to protect Europe from the USSR. NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be dissolved.

So that Trump can kiss Putin's @rse in public!

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Usa became the most powerful country

And cast it all away under Trump!

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So that Trump can kiss Putin's @rse in public!

The weak Europeans should be able to the threat of Russia without the USA getting involved.

21 hours ago, swissie said:

The US MAY HAVE TO PULL OUT OF NATO, as all their military strenght may be needed in the South China Sea. = Taiwan.

Failure to keep control of the South China Sea (Taiwan), will indicate that the "Empire of the United States of America" has come to an end.

The current US administration regards Europe from a "sentimental factor" at the most (early immigrants coming from Europe).

The current administration sees Europe only as an economical competitor that needs to be "stifled" and NATO only a an old concept that burdens the US heavily financially and militarily.

In other words: The US has lost interest in Europe.

The U.S. has not lost interest in Europe. If anything, the growing risk around Taiwan is exactly why Europe needs to get serious about defending itself. America still wants strong allies in Europe, but alliances are supposed to be a two-way street. The issue is not that the U.S. is walking away — it is that Europe has relied too heavily on America for way too long.

19 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

I agree kick the Yanks out of our bases in the UK. The illegals arriving across the channel can move in freeing up Hotel spaces. Plus in the future Wars America starts, no coalition forces will be coming galloping to there Rescue when they F k up, and forget asking our SAS to help you out.

Easy to talk tough about kicking the Americans out until there is a real security threat on your doorstep. Then the same people mocking the U.S. will be the first ones asking for help.

Iran has spent decades acting like the neighborhood bully through terror, proxies, and regional destabilization. Now that the U.S. is finally confronting that, suddenly people are more upset at America than at the regime that caused the problems.

5 minutes ago, ericthai said:

Then the same people mocking the U.S. will be the first ones asking for help.

While he says he will never give any help to NATO or Europe or that ex Allied countries could even think he might give any help to anyone except Putin etc!!

26 minutes ago, ericthai said:

America still wants strong allies in Europe, but alliances are supposed to be a two-way street.

Tell that to Trump as all he has done this term is to alienate his now ex allies!

1 minute ago, ericthai said:

Easy to talk tough about kicking the Americans out until there is a real security threat on your doorstep. Then the same people mocking the U.S. will be the first ones asking for help.

Iran has spent decades acting like the neighborhood bully through terror, proxies, and regional destabilization. Now that the U.S. is finally confronting that, suddenly people are more upset at America than at the regime that caused the problems.

People are upset that the US didn't consider the Iranians would close the Strait. They're also suspicious about the attack, especially when the Oman representative said a deal was close.

Many suspect Kushner and Witkoff led the Iranians on so their leaders were all in one place for the Israelis to attack them. Everyone knows how close Kushner is to Netanyahu.

In addition it's been said Witkoff had no technical knowledge about uranium and was unsuitable to lead the talks.

So now Trump has caused the Strait to be blocked, he has no obvious way to open it. Meanwhile he blasts daily that Iran has been obliterated, yet they still fire missiles and drones at the Gulf States and Israel daily.

An utter mess.

29 minutes ago, bannork said:

People are upset that the US didn't consider the Iranians would close the Strait. They're also suspicious about the attack, especially when the Oman representative said a deal was close.

Many suspect Kushner and Witkoff led the Iranians on so their leaders were all in one place for the Israelis to attack them. Everyone knows how close Kushner is to Netanyahu.

In addition it's been said Witkoff had no technical knowledge about uranium and was unsuitable to lead the talks.

So now Trump has caused the Strait to be blocked, he has no obvious way to open it. Meanwhile he blasts daily that Iran has been obliterated, yet they still fire missiles and drones at the Gulf States and Israel daily.

An utter mess.

I am sure that the any effect on the Persian Gulf was considered and I expect that's why Trump is urging any and all allies in the ME Gulf Region for supportive action now. Iran is obstructing the Gulf, which doesn't take much in the way of mobile missile batteries or large drone resources hidden in the coastal ranges, which Iran evidently still has. That may be why Trump has just suggested 2-3 more weeks of strikes?

The USA can leave NATO if it wants to but Trump cannot do that alone as President. According to the NATO Treaty, after 1969, any member could freely withdraw (Article 13). To date, the original treaty has never been reviewed, nor has a member withdrawn from NATO.

I think that Trump would rather have a strong and unified NATO than leave it. As Eric suggests, Trump is probably as concerned with the security of Taiwan as with anything else.

Can the U.S. really walk away from NATO?

The Gulf States invited the US to build bases so that the US could protect them. Howzat working out?
During the Cold War Europe wanted the US to build bases so the US could protect them. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has no interest in colonizing Europe. But if they did. Look at the US in the Gulf. Is the US "protecting" the Gulf States. Nope. Can the US "protect" Europe? Nope

Time to cut bait and run