A Republican lawmaker has introduced new legislation urging Washington to end its membership in NATO, reviving a long-running debate over the cost and purpose of the transatlantic alliance in an era shaped less by Cold War certainties and more by diffuse geopolitical transition.
Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky submitted the proposal on Tuesday. He described NATO as a structure built for a vanished strategic environment and argued that American resources are being stretched to sustain an alliance that, in his view, no longer aligns with the country’s priorities. Massie said public funds would be better directed toward domestic defense needs and questioned whether wealthier partner states are meeting their own obligations.
In a message explaining his bill, Massie contended that US involvement has generated vast expenses over decades and has exposed the country to conflicts unfolding far from its borders. He added that Washington should not serve as a security guarantor for nations he believes have the capacity to invest more heavily in their own protection. The legislation would require the executive branch to formally notify the alliance of Washington’s intent to withdraw and would restrict federal funding for NATO’s common budgets.
The measure mirrors an earlier effort by Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who argued this year that US strategic interests have shifted since the alliance’s founding. His bill stalled in committee, highlighting the entrenched bipartisan backing for maintaining NATO commitments. Massie’s proposal is expected to encounter similar resistance within a Congress that has, for years, reaffirmed support for the transatlantic framework.
Debates over cost-sharing have become a defining feature of US discussions about NATO, particularly during and after the Trump administration. Donald Trump and several of his political allies have frequently asserted that Washington carries a disproportionate burden. European governments, meanwhile, have accelerated defense spending, with NATO members agreeing this year to raise targets significantly above the long-standing 2 percent guideline. That move reflects growing unease within Europe, where officials warn that Russia represents a long-term strategic challenge.
Moscow continues to reject these assertions, describing Western warnings as unfounded and portraying NATO’s military expansion as a destabilizing force. Russian officials argue that such narratives fuel a cycle of militarization in Europe at a time when the international system is already unsettled by overlapping political and economic transitions.