IRIA News

6 minute read

U.S. Republican Representative Thomas Massie introduced new legislation on December 9, 2025, seeking to remove the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), marking one of the most direct challenges in decades to the country’s role in the post-war security alliance.

Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky, introduced HR 6508, titled the NATO Act, which would require the United States to formally begin the withdrawal process from the alliance under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

The move immediately drew attention in Washington and across Europe amid ongoing debates over burden sharing, the future of Western defense structures, and U.S. commitments under the Trump administration.

“NATO is a Cold War relic. We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries,” Republican congressman Massie said.

Massie highlighted, “NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars.”

“Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket, especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,” he explained in his petition.

NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries.

Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership. pic.twitter.com/IvRfTH388W

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 9, 2025

Details of the NATO Act

The legislation introduced in the House outlines several findings to support withdrawal from the alliance. First, it requires the President to formally notify NATO of the U.S. decision to exit, following the procedures included in Article 13.

The bill argues that NATO’s original Cold War mission no longer aligns with present-day U.S. national security interests.

According to the text, European NATO members possess sufficient economic and military capacity to provide for their own defense, reducing the need for continued U.S. commitments under the treaty.

The legislation also seeks to restrict U.S. taxpayer funds from being used for NATO’s civil and military budgets or the Security Investment Program. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced companion legislation, S.2174, in the U.S. Senate.

Additional Statements and Background

The bill states that the alliance began its major expansion to the east in 1999 despite the end of the Cold War. It argues that this growth occurred even as the alliance lost its original relevance. It further notes that European members have “sufficient economic and military capacity” to protect their own territories.

The proposal must first be reviewed by the relevant House committees, and it remains unclear when it may reach the full House of Representatives for consideration.

Massie has frequently opposed U.S. military involvement overseas. He criticized U.S. strikes on Iranian facilities on June 22, calling them unconstitutional. His comments drew public criticism from President Donald Trump, who also stated he would support Massie’s primary opponent in future elections.

Historical Context of NATO Alliance

NATO was founded in 1949 when 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, D.C. The original members were the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, and Iceland.

The alliance has undergone 10 rounds of enlargement, with three occurring during the Cold War and seven after. Recent expansions brought the total membership to 32 states, including additions in 2023 and 2024.

The introduction of the NATO withdrawal bill comes at the same time Washington is pressing European allies to take on a far greater share of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities. Pentagon officials told European diplomats this week that the United States wants Europe to assume the majority of these responsibilities by 2027, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

Five individuals, including a U.S. official, said the message was delivered during meetings in Washington involving Pentagon staff who oversee NATO policy and several European delegations. According to the sources, Pentagon officials warned that the United States may stop participating in some NATO defense coordination mechanisms if Europe fails to meet the 2027 goal.

There is no clear metric yet for how Washington would measure Europe’s progress. Conventional defense capabilities include non-nuclear assets such as troops, intelligence systems, aircraft, and missiles.

U.S. and European officials acknowledged that there are disagreements within Washington about the appropriate level of U.S. involvement in European security. Some European diplomats said the 2027 target was unrealistic, pointing to production backlogs in military equipment and the long timelines required to procure and deploy advanced U.S.-made weapons systems.

Production bottlenecks remain a significant challenge for many NATO members, especially for high-demand items needed to sustain Ukraine’s defensive operations. Several European governments have placed new orders for U.S. weapons systems, but deliveries could take years.

Another factor is that the United States contributes unique intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that cannot easily be replaced. These systems have been crucial to Ukraine’s defense.

A NATO spokesperson said European allies have begun assuming more responsibility for the continent’s security but did not comment on the reported 2027 deadline. “Allies have recognized the need to invest more in defense and shift the burden on conventional defense from the U.S. to Europe,” the spokesperson said.

Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said, “We’ve been very clear in the need for Europeans to lead in the conventional defense of Europe. We are committed to working through NATO coordination mechanisms to strengthen the alliance and ensure its long-term viability as European allies increasingly take on responsibility for conventional deterrence and defense in Europe.”

Mixed Signals in US Policy toward NATO

European officials remain uncertain about Washington’s long-term stance. President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged European allies to increase defense spending. On the campaign trail in 2024, he said he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members that failed to meet spending targets. However, at the NATO summit in June, he praised European leaders for agreeing to raise annual defense spending targets to 5% of GDP.

European governments have also expressed concern that they were excluded from recent discussions between U.S. officials and Russian representatives over the conflict in Ukraine.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said this week that it was “obvious” that NATO allies should take responsibility for defending Europe. “Successive U.S. Administrations have been saying this in one form or another pretty much my whole life…but our Administration means what it says,” he wrote on X.

The future of the U.S. role in NATO now faces renewed uncertainty as Congress takes up Massie’s proposal.