Introduction

For over seven decades, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed in 1949, has proven its mettle in shaping global security in the past and contemporary world order. NATO started out as a deterrent and a collective defense against the Soviet Union during the tense Cold War and later evolved as a peacekeeper, combating terrorism and fostering partnerships and international cooperation. While the alliance can be said to have fulfilled its founding objectives, its relevance and adequacy have often come under scrutiny. One of the most vocal critics remains US President Donald Trump, who had previously hinted at disengagement, and in his second term, the chances of the USA making an exit from NATO have increased more than ever. He flirted with the same idea even during his first term (2016–2020), but it never came to fruition. Despite being an organization primarily focused on Europe, NATO’s influence extends to Asian countries, including India. A US withdrawal would mean an alteration in the status quo and a shift in the centers of power. Europe will most likely suffer as it will lose its say in the world forum, and Asian economies and defense markets will become more relevant. Thus, its impact on Indian defense deals is something to keep an eye on as the US strives to be the top contender for Indian defense imports. 

 Feasibility

Senators Tim Kaine and Marco Rubio in December 2023 introduced something called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024. Section 1250A of the act prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without either:
A. approval by a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate or
B. an act of Congress.

Article 13 of The North Atlantic Treaty (1949) states that “any party may cease to be a party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the government of the United States of America, which will inform the governments of the other parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.” So technically, the USA shall continue to be a member of NATO for a year after it submits its proposal of withdrawal, should it decide to withdraw officially. International law relies on voluntary compliance; there is nothing legally binding for the US to follow the provisions of the treaty. Trump officially withdrawing from NATO, just like he did from the Paris Agreements and the WHO, is dubious; what might rather, and with high chances, happen is that he will just let it die.

Decrease funding, withdraw troops, and undermine Article 5 of the treaty that states that an armed attack on one member state be considered against all. He did speak about doing the same a few times.
Thus, President Trump calling NATO “obsolete” and asking for “fair treatment for the USA” are an indication of the US’s disengagement from NATO, to say the least. So while a full U.S. exit remains improbable, a shift in priorities and disengagement could reshape global military alignments, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, where India stands as a key U.S. partner.

Click Here To Download The Paper