Publication - OKB5azEUNHSRyl0fzQNcRd0ZsYD2

The article is titled “Is Donald Trump on a constitutional collision course over NATO?.” It was originally published on February 19, 2025 and is authored by Aaron Ettinger
Associate Professor, International Relations, Carleton University.

Over the past few weeks, United States President Donald Trump has let loose a flurry of executive orders aiming to impose the MAGA agenda unilaterally.
The legal challenges and judicial stays that have followed speak to the degree to which the limits of presidential authority are at risk in America. These limits include the making and breaking of international treaties.
In the crosshairs is NATO, the very existence of which is threatened by Trump more than anything else.
But can he sign an executive order and unilaterally denounce the North Atlantic Treaty — which forms the legal basis of NATO — or any international treaty, for that matter? The answer is uncertain, but perhaps not for long.
Vice President J.D. Vance has stated on social media that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” suggesting that Trump won’t be checked or balanced by the judiciary or other branches of government. This sets up a high stakes battle over the limits of “legitimate” presidential authority.
Any unilateral termination of the North Atlantic Treaty would likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. This question therefore is about more than just NATO. It’s about the power of the presidency to override Congress, ignore courts, terminate treaties and reshape the international order.
How to quit an alliance
To leave NATO, all a member needs to do is say so. Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty lays out simple instructions: give notice of denunciation to the U.S. government, which will then tell the other members. Basically, Trump can inform himself and likely post something to social media and the one-year countdown clock begins.
But can Trump unilaterally withdraw from NATO in a way that’s constitutional? This is where things get ambiguous.
The more appropriate question is: “Can the U.S. president unilaterally terminate an act of Congress?”
The U.S. Constitution requires that international treaties have the “advice and consent” of “two-thirds of senators present” to become law. America’s adoption of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 followed this process. But on treaty termination, the constitution is silent.
This is remarkable because the U.S. has been terminating treaties since 1798. Naturally, the authority over treaty termination has been debated for just as long.
The arguments boil down to this: if treaties are regarded as analogous to domestic law, then Trump needs the consent of two-thirds of the Senate to terminate the North Atlantic Treaty.
If the domestic analogy is rejected or treaties are regarded as falling under the vested powers of the presidency — or as giving the president wiggle room to suspend elements of the agreement — then Trump can do what he wants.
The Supreme Court’s stance
Does the Supreme Court have anything to say? No, and deliberately so.
In 1979, the court dismissed a suit brought by Sen. Barry Goldwater against President Jimmy Carter after Carter terminated a 25-year-old mutual defence treaty with Taiwan. The court dismissed the case as a non-justiciable political question.
A similar outcome occurred in 2002 when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia. Members of Congress filed suit, but the case was dismissed by a federal court on the same grounds.
What we have now is a practice of treaty termination that is governed by the norms of shared power over foreign policy between Congress and the presidency, exactly the kind of guardrails that Trump loves to ignore.
So it seems that Trump could have a path to denouncing the North Atlantic Treaty. But there’s a twist.
The Marco Rubio twist
At the end of 2023, Congress passed the Defense Department budget that included a provision meant to forestall any unilateral withdrawal from NATO.
Buried deep in the 974-page National Defense Authorization Act is a provision that prohibits the president from “suspending, terminating, denouncing, or withdrawing” from NATO “except with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate.” That clause, spearheaded by then-senator and current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is critical because of a court decision that’s nearly as old as NATO itself.
In 1952, in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, the Supreme Court clarified the parameters on executive power. It argued presidential authority on any matter is “is at its lowest ebb” when working against congressional authority.
The Rubio clause may be the exact constitutional authority that stops Trump in his tracks. But stay tuned: this is all subject to change.
What’s next?
In 2025, the conditions for unilateral withdrawal seem to align perfectly for Trump: constitutional ambiguity, antiquated norms of polite governance and deferential courts.
It might seem that Trump could denounce the North Atlantic Treaty with a few thumbstrokes, but that obscure provision in the Pentagon budget changes things. Any unilateral denunciation of NATO by Trump would set him on a collision course with Congress, and the matter would rocket toward the Supreme Court.
So far, though, Trump hasn’t raised the spectre of termination. Instead, he has been more interested in increasing the NATO defence spending target to five per cent of GDP, up from two per cent, a requirement that would be difficult for many members to meet.
It’s possible that including that language in the next NATO summit declaration would be enough for Trump. He’d look tough without the constitutional fight at home. Supporters of NATO, the durability of U.S. treaties and the separation of powers in America can only hope that will be enough.

Is Donald Trump on a constitutional collision course over NATO?

February 19, 2025 • My Project Name

Read Article

About My Project Name

https://www.mygroup.com