The NATO Act would require the President to notify denouncement of the North Atlantic Treaty within 30 days of enactment, effecting withdrawal from NATO. It also asserts that this action satisfies the congressional authorization requirement under the FY2024 NDAA and bars funds from being used to contribute to NATO budgets.
The bill frames NATO membership as no longer aligned with current U.S. security interests and reorients funding away from alliance budgets.
At a Glance
What It Does
The President must give notice of denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty for withdrawal within 30 days of enactment. The bill also states that this withdrawal fits the NDAA FY2024 authorization framework and prohibits funding NATO budgets.
Who It Affects
The Executive Branch (President and agencies) implements withdrawal; DoD and State Department budget and posture shift; NATO member states rely on U.S. commitment; Congress exercises authorization/oversight.
Why It Matters
This marks a fundamental reorientation of U.S. security commitments, with broad implications for transatlantic deterrence, alliance budgets, and diplomatic dynamics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by framing NATO’s founding purpose and historical context in the Findings, but its practical effect is straightforward: the President is required to issue a denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty so the United States would withdraw from NATO, and this action is presented as satisfying a congressional authorizing framework from a 2024 NDAA provision. A blanket prohibition follows on using U.S. funds to support NATO budgets, including the civil, military, and Security Investment Programs.
The final provisions include a severability clause to preserve the rest of the act if any part is struck down. The overall aim is to detach the United States from the alliance and eliminate U.S. financial contributions supporting NATO operations and programs, while ensuring the act remains legally resilient if challenged.
The text relies on a lengthy set of historical claims about NATO’s relevance and expansion, but its operative mechanics sit in the denunciation mandate, the NDAA reference, and the funding ban.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The President must notify denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty within 30 days of enactment.
The bill claims this withdrawal fulfills Section 1250A of the FY2024 NDAA.
No funds may be used to pay U.S. contributions to NATO’s civil, military, or Security Investment budgets.
The act includes a severability clause to preserve the remainder if a provision is unconstitutional.
The act is titled the NATO Act or Not A Trusted Organization Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the formal name by which the act may be cited, establishing its branding. It sets the stage for a unilateral policy shift by formalizing the bill’s identifier.
Findings
A long series of statements about NATO’s origins, expansion, and its role in European security. These findings frame the policy choice as consistent with a changed geopolitical environment and US security interests, while also asserting historical assurances given to Russia that are now treated as inapplicable.
Denunciation of North Atlantic Treaty
The core operative provision requiring the President to give notice of denunciation within 30 days of enactment. This triggers potential withdrawal from NATO, representing a fundamental reorientation of security commitments and alliance status.
NDAA 1250A Fulfillment
This section ties withdrawal to the claim that it satisfies the authorized mechanism in the FY2024 NDAA (Section 1250A). It positions congressional authorization as met and anchoring the withdrawal in an existing statutory framework.
Prohibition on the Use of Funds
A blanket prohibition on using any funds to support NATO budgets—civil, military, or Security Investment Program—effectively removing federal financial support for alliance operations and planning.
Severability
If any provision is held unconstitutional, the rest of the act remains in force. This preserves the policy framework even in the face of potential legal challenges to individual provisions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The President and executive agencies gain a clear procedural path to withdrawal and the flexibility to redefine U.S. commitments.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. taxpayers and fiscal watchdogs benefit from explicit funding prohibitions, reducing ongoing NATO contributions.
- Congressional committees with oversight responsibilities may gain clearer jurisdiction over treaty-related actions via alignment with NDAA processes.
- Advocates for national sovereignty who favor recalibrating or limiting long-standing alliance duties benefit from a policy posture that prioritizes unilateral options.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether unilateral withdrawal from a long-standing collective defense alliance serves U.S. security interests or creates greater risk by eroding deterrence and transatlantic stability, all while preserving the appearance of a rapid, legislatively backed exit.
The bill creates a radical pivot by denouncing and withdrawing from NATO, which could redefine the United States’ security posture and deterrence framework in Europe. The 30-day withdrawal timeline raises questions about feasibility given treaty obligations and the depth of U.S.-spoke security commitments.
The funding prohibition reframes alliance finance as a domestic policy lever but risks triggering diplomatic and economic frictions with allies and partners who rely on U.S. leadership and the alliance’s budgets. The linkage to FY2024 NDAA Section 1250A is a political mechanism that makes withdrawal appear to be pre-authorized, but it does not address practical implementation, transition planning, or potential legal challenges to treaty termination.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.