America still benefits from the alliance, and GOP lawmakers should not fear that they are out of step with voters by supporting it.
P resident Trump’s recent actions regarding Russia and Ukraine, coupled with Vice President Vance’s Munich speech, have left many traditional transatlanticists at home and abroad worried that the United States is abandoning its traditional NATO allies. Friday’s heated exchange in the Oval Office during which Trump and Vance publicly scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky only heightened those concerns.
NATO’s American friends would reassure its European ones if they would pass a congressional resolution reaffirming American commitment to this nation’s treaty obligations and continued deployment of troops within NATO’s European borders.
NATO has been the linchpin of American security since its creation in 1949. Formed to contain the Soviet Union’s global aspirations, it helped to keep the peace throughout the Cold War. Knowing that Europe and Canada were doing their parts for the common defense also allowed America to build further alliances in Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere to keep the balance of power from tilting against the West.
Europe’s gross underfunding of its own defense needs in recent decades has clearly undermined Americans’ support for NATO. But it remains robust, according to a recent Pew Research Institute poll.
That survey, fielded in early February, found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the United States benefits a fair amount or a great deal from NATO membership. Republicans are split on the question, with 47 percent saying America still benefits a lot from NATO, so GOP congresspersons need not fear that they are out of step with their voters.
The resolution would not directly criticize or even mention Trump or Vance. Instead, it would simply state the historic and ongoing benefits NATO has brought for America and the world. It would go on to clearly state that the U.S. Congress considers the nation bound by its obligations under the NATO treaty, specifically mentioning the mutual defense clause in Article V that says an attack on one member state is an attack on all.
The resolution should also address the question of U.S. troop deployment in Europe. It should not specifically commit to concrete numbers, nor should it list which nations those units or personnel are to be stationed in. But it should clearly state that Congress expects that sufficient personnel, units, and equipment will be permanently stationed in such a manner as to convincingly affirm America’s willingness and ability to swiftly fulfill its treaty obligations.
It would also be wise for the resolution to state America’s clear expectation that all treaty signatories will field and equip armed forces sufficient to meet each member state’s obligations. It should commend the recent dramatic increases in armament that many nations have undertaken while also clearly stating that these hikes alone are insufficient to meet the challenges the alliance faces.
Passage of this resolution would calm nerves here and abroad. It would show that even a Republican-controlled Congress is willing to make clear, unequivocal statements that America is not cutting and running. That message would help our allies see that our national commitment runs deeper than mere domestic partisan concerns.
Some Republicans will worry that they are criticizing President Trump. That is likely overblown. He has taken pains not to directly undermine the alliance and is not likely to go ballistic in the face of this maneuver.
Moreover, the polling data show that pro-NATO Republicans can draw on deep reservoirs of support for the traditional alignment. Trump’s power is ultimately reliant on his ability to support successful primary challenges against members of Congress who defy him, but he would be taking a clear risk in basing support for any such challenge on this issue alone.
Republican senators would be able to cite their confirmation of Trump’s nominees and well as their support for many other initiatives. Even if Trump were to throw down a primary gauntlet, it’s by no means clear that his preferred choice would win. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s landslide victory against former Senator David Perdue’s Trump-backed challenge in the 2022 gubernatorial primary clearly shows that even Trump’s persuasive power has limits.
Passage of a resolution that does not mention Trump also puts Democrats in a bind. Many on that party’s left flank will want to attack him, but the more responsible members will know that “country over party” only carries meaning if in fact one acts in that spirit.
A pro-NATO resolution like this forces either leftist Democrats to back a traditional measure and forgo their pastime of attacking the White House 24/7/365 or split their party. Less doctrinaire Democrats would jump at the chance to prove their bipartisanship — and that fact would also reassure our allies.
America’s alliances have kept it secure for 80 years, mainly because they ensured that most of the world’s economic power was on its side. Modern warfare has long rewarded nations that can summon that power to create the military forces that will, with prudence and patience, grind their enemies into dust.
Abandoning NATO would cut nearly a quarter of the global economy loose from that web, likely encouraging the Beijing-Moscow axis to move forward in pursuit of its maximal aims. Passing a resolution like this would help keep that worst-case scenario from transpiring — and this would help keep the peace for years to come.