GOP Pulling US Out Of NATO?
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) sparked major headlines on Wednesday after introducing a bold new bill that would withdraw the United States from the NATO alliance — a move that immediately set off debate across Washington and among national security experts.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced she will co-sponsor the legislation, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is introducing a matching bill in the Senate.
Massie said the goal is simple: put America first by ending decades of massive spending on foreign defense commitments that no longer serve U.S. interests.
Massie argued that NATO is “a leftover from the Cold War” and said the U.S. should leave the alliance and redirect those funds toward protecting America instead of propping up socialist nations.
He emphasized that the Soviet Union — NATO’s original reason for existing — collapsed more than 30 years ago, yet American taxpayers are still footing huge military bills.
He added that America’s involvement has drained taxpayers of trillions and still places the country at risk of being pulled into overseas conflicts.
A Growing Split Inside the GOP Over NATO and Foreign Spending
Massie’s move highlights a widening divide inside the Republican Party.
While many America-First conservatives support re-evaluating NATO, other Republicans have pushed for more U.S. involvement, particularly as tensions rise in Europe.
Recent examples include:
- A bipartisan plan from Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) calling for tighter NATO air-defense coordination.
- Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) proposing more military cooperation with NATO’s eastern flank.
But Massie argues the United States cannot keep acting as the world’s piggy bank.
“America should not be the world’s security blanket — especially when wealthy nations refuse to pay for their own defense.”
Trump’s NATO Strategy Continues to Shape the Debate
President Trump’s tough approach to NATO spending remains highly influential. For years, Trump has pressed NATO allies to substantially increase their contributions.
He has encouraged members to reach at least 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035, insisting the United States can no longer subsidize Europe’s military shortfalls.
Trump has continued calling out countries like Spain for backing out of previously promised spending goals. However, unlike during his first term, he has not indicated plans to withdraw the U.S. from NATO in 2025.
At the NATO Summit in June, Trump underscored his willingness to work with allies — but only if they take responsibility:
“I’m committed to being their friends,” he said.
“I’ve become friends with many of those leaders, and I’m committed to helping them — but they must step up.”
The White House declined to comment on Massie’s proposal.
What the NATO Act Would Actually Do
Massie’s legislation — titled the NATO Act — would dramatically shift U.S. foreign policy. The bill would:
- Formally withdraw the United States from NATO
- Block the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars for NATO’s civil or military budgets
- End U.S. participation in the NATO Security Investment Program
- Refocus defense spending on protecting American borders and American communities
Massie argues that NATO’s original Cold War mission simply does not match the threats America faces today.
Europe Worried as Peace Talks Shift Under Trump
The bill comes as several NATO members privately express concerns about Trump’s direct peace negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine. Many European leaders fear the United States may eventually prioritize diplomatic solutions over costly military expansions.
Massie says that global anxiety is proof that NATO has become too dependent on U.S. leadership and U.S. money, reinforcing the need for a serious national reassessment.
BOTTOM LINE
For older conservative readers, this debate strikes at the heart of America’s future:
- Should the U.S. keep paying billions to defend wealthy European nations?
- Or is it time to put American families, American borders, and American security first?
Massie’s legislation ensures that question will now take center stage in Washington — and across the 2026 election landscape.
