Senator Mike Lee’s introduction of the “Not A Trusted Organization (NATO) Act” represents more than just political theater—it crystallizes a fundamental debate about America’s place in the post-Cold War world that we can no longer afford to ignore.
Lee’s bill, which would direct President Trump to formally withdraw the United States from NATO, arrives at a moment when the alliance appears more relevant than ever. With Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine and China’s rising influence, the senator’s timing seems counterintuitive. Yet his core argument about burden-sharing deserves serious consideration, even if his proposed solution is dangerously misguided.
The Burden-Sharing Reality Check
Lee isn’t wrong about the economics. For decades, European allies have indeed relied heavily on American military spending while many failed to meet even NATO’s modest 2% GDP defense spending target. The irony of wealthy European nations underfunding their own defense while America stretched its military across global commitments has long frustrated policymakers on both sides of the aisle.
However, framing this as a “raw deal” fundamentally misunderstands what NATO provides America. The alliance isn’t charity—it’s strategic investment. NATO gives the United States unprecedented influence over European security policy, forward military positioning, and intelligence sharing that money simply cannot buy elsewhere.
Trump’s Pragmatic Paradox
President Trump’s performance at The Hague summit reveals the complex reality of governing versus campaigning. While he secured commitments for increased defense spending to 5% of GDP—a significant achievement—his simultaneous endorsement of Article 5 suggests even he recognizes NATO’s strategic value when confronted with the practical consequences of withdrawal.
This contradiction between rhetoric and policy reflects a broader challenge for any administration: the gap between populist promises and geopolitical realities. Trump’s “America First” agenda sounds compelling in campaign rallies, but governing requires acknowledging that American interests are often best served through multilateral engagement.
The Congressional Guardrails
Perhaps most telling is how Congress has already moved to constrain presidential power over NATO membership. The bipartisan 2023 legislation requiring Senate approval for withdrawal wasn’t just about Trump—it reflected institutional recognition that alliance relationships transcend any single administration’s preferences.
Lee’s bill will likely fail not because Congress loves NATO unconditionally, but because lawmakers understand the catastrophic implications of withdrawal. Abandoning NATO wouldn’t just end America’s European commitments—it would signal to allies worldwide that American partnerships are unreliable, potentially accelerating the very multipolar world order that threatens American influence.
A Missed Opportunity
Rather than pursuing withdrawal, Lee and his Republican colleagues could have pushed for more substantive NATO reform. Why not demand real consequences for allies who consistently underspend on defense? Why not restructure NATO’s command arrangements to reduce American operational burdens while maintaining strategic leadership?
The senator’s companion bills on burden-sharing reporting are actually more constructive than his headline-grabbing withdrawal proposal. Transparency about who pays what could create the political pressure needed for genuine reform without destroying the alliance altogether.
The Broader Stakes
This debate extends beyond NATO to fundamental questions about American global leadership in the 21st century. As China builds alternative international institutions and Russia seeks to fracture Western unity, American withdrawal from NATO would represent perhaps the greatest strategic gift we could give our competitors.
The alliance’s expansion following Russia’s Ukraine invasion demonstrates its continued relevance. Finland and Sweden’s rapid accession wasn’t driven by American pressure but by European recognition that collective security remains essential in an increasingly dangerous world.
Looking Forward
Lee’s bill will fail, as it should. But the frustrations it represents—about burden-sharing, about America’s global commitments, about the costs of leadership—won’t disappear with its defeat. These concerns demand serious policy responses, not just political posturing.
The real test for the Trump administration will be whether it can leverage America’s NATO leadership to address legitimate burden-sharing concerns while strengthening, rather than abandoning, the alliance. Secretary General Rutte’s success in securing the 5% spending commitment suggests this approach can work.
America’s choice isn’t between NATO leadership and isolationist withdrawal—it’s between strategic leadership that serves American interests and reflexive dominance that breeds resentment. Lee’s bill represents the latter approach, and our national security will be better served by rejecting it in favor of thoughtful alliance reform.
The “Not A Trusted Organization” act reveals more about its author’s worldview than NATO’s actual value. In an era of great power competition, abandoning our most successful alliance would be not just strategically foolish, but historically tragic.
