‘Time to Leave NATO’: Sen. Mike Lee Unveils Trio of Bills to Withdraw U.S., Expose Allied ‘Freeloaders,’ Demand Defense Transparency

| Published June 26, 2025

In a bold legislative move, Senator Mike Lee (R‑Utah) has introduced a trio of bills aiming to significantly alter, and potentially end, the United States’ role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Announced during the high-profile NATO summit, Lee’s proposals challenge the alliance’s current structure, citing disproportionate U.S. contributions and a lack of accountability from European allies. Framing NATO as an outdated burden, the bills call for full withdrawal, detailed annual reports on allied military spending, and greater transparency in defense commitments—a move certain to spark debate both in Washington and among America’s global partners.

📰 What happened

Senator Mike Lee (R‑UT) has introduced three bills amid the ongoing NATO summit to challenge the U.S.–NATO relationship and spotlight ally funding:

Not A Trusted Organization (NATO) Act
- Directs the president to initiate withdrawal from NATO under Article 13.
- Requires congressional approval.
- Prohibits U.S. taxpayer money from supporting NATO’s civil or military budgets.
Allied Burden Sharing Report Act
- Mandates the Department of Defense to produce yearly reports on all 59 U.S. allies.
- Details defense spending (both total and as % of GDP), troop readiness, limitations on contributions, U.S. actions to address those limits
NATO Burden Sharing Report Act
- Similar to above, but focuses on NATO members.
- Adds coverage of defense-industrial capacity, Ukraine contributions, and reliance on U.S. military assets

🗣️ Lawmakers’ positions

Mike Lee: Argues NATO has “run its course” and accuses Europe of freeloading on U.S. sensibilities.
Sen. Rand Paul (R‑KY) endorses the accountability aspect, claiming NATO allies treat the U.S. as “the sugar daddy and the world’s policeman”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN) calls for transparency to ensure every member “pulls their weight”

🌍 Context & reception

The 2% GDP defense spending target was reaffirmed in 2023, yet roughly one‑third of NATO countries still fall short.
While President Trump has criticized NATO’s cost-sharing, he recently reassured summit attendees that he supports the alliance.
These bills mark a sharp shift—if passed, they could trigger major strategic and diplomatic ripple effects.

Pros and Cons

✅ PROS

Financial Accountability
- Forces NATO allies to meet their defense spending commitments (e.g., 2% of GDP), reducing the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers.
U.S. Sovereignty and Focus
- Re-centers U.S. defense policy around national interests instead of international obligations that may no longer serve strategic goals.
Transparency and Fairness
- Annual reports would expose underperforming allies and create public pressure for fairer burden sharing.
Public Debate
- Sparks overdue discussion on whether NATO, created in 1949, is still relevant in its current form or needs reform.

❌ CONS

Destabilizing Alliances
- Withdrawal could fracture NATO unity, embolden adversaries like Russia, and weaken collective defense in Europe.
Global Leadership Decline
- May signal a retreat from America’s post-WWII leadership role, undermining trust among allies.
Economic & Security Risks
- A sudden U.S. exit could disrupt defense contracts, troop deployments, and strategic deterrence, including in Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Congressional & Diplomatic Gridlock
- These bills may not pass, but even the proposal could strain relationships and fuel uncertainty among U.S. partners.

Bottom Line:

Senator Mike Lee’s legislative push to withdraw the United States from NATO and demand stricter transparency from allies represents a major shift in America’s foreign policy discourse. While it underscores growing frustration over unequal defense burdens and seeks to prioritize U.S. interests, it also risks weakening long-standing alliances that have underpinned global security for decades. Whether these bills gain traction or not, they signal a deepening divide over America’s role on the world stage—and a renewed debate about the cost and value of international commitments.