World News

I mean Newsweek has been a tabloid for a while (if they were ever a reputable journal to begin with)

I mean, there are sources there. It's just...not people who would have current, inside information. John Bolton hasn't been in government since he was National Security Advisor under Trump in Trump's first term and the two fell out. He's been asserting that Trump doesn't like NATO or alliances at all for some time, though, based on his interactions with Trump in Term 1.

kagis

Here's him in 2022, back before he expected Trump to actually make it into a second term:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton says 'Putin was waiting' for Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO in his second term

"I thought he put his foot over it, but at least he didn't withdraw then," said Bolton, who wrote in his memoir about Trump's consideration of withdrawing from NATO in 2018. "In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO. And I think Putin was waiting for that."

Trump viewed NATO as a liability during his presidency, believing that European countries were not paying enough of their fair share of the burden of providing defense to the alliance. Bolton, a State Department official during the George W. Bush administration, was brought on to be Trump's national security advisor in 2018 only to be ousted a year and a half later.

Bolton's latest comments come just days after he told Newsmax that Trump "barely knew where Ukraine was," pushing back on a host who said the former president had been "tough on Russia."

Asked whether he was satisfied by how the Trump administration handled Ukraine, Bolton criticized his former boss.

"I think it went very badly," said Bolton. "It was hard to have discussions on geostrategic issues when the president's main interest was getting... Rudy Giuliani in to see [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky so they could go find Hillary Clinton's computer server.

Bolton said on Friday that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper were concerned by Trump's behavior at the time. "All of us felt that we needed to bolster Ukraine's security, and were appalled at what Trump was doing," he said.

EDIT: It'd actually be interesting to see whether Trump can withdraw from NATO. Remarkably-enough, this is a part of American constitutional law that has never been legally-resolved: does the President, acting solo, have the ability to terminate a ratified treaty without action from Congress?

The question was raised with SCOTUS in Goldwater v. Carter, but that case was dismissed on a technicality, so we don't really have a ruling on the matter.

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China, so that relations could instead be established with the People's Republic of China.

Goldwater and his co-filers claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office. While dismissing the case the Court left open the question of the constitutionality of President Carter's actions.

To enter into a treaty, like NATO, the Senate's approval is required. So it does seem reasonable to me that going to the Senate should be required to exit a treaty. But...we haven't actually established what the rule there is, even after nearly two-and-a-half centuries of being a country.

EDIT2: The UK recently had to fight out a similar question over Brexit in their Supreme Court: could the Prime Minister, without action from Parliament, withdraw from the European Union?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Miller%29_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union

In that case, their Supreme Court ruled no, that the Prime Minister couldn't singlehandedly leave the European Union, had to go back to Parliament.

EDIT3: I'd also add that I am dubious that Trump would leave NATO, even if Europe refuses to spend another cent on defense. I do think that he would potentially retaliate in other ways. I think that most policymakers in the US want the US in NATO -- but that there is a lot of agreement on Europe and defense spending and that the US has been ignored for a long time on the matter.

EDIT4: In the hypothetical that the US did leave NATO, it could theoretically rejoin under a more-sympathetic administration, but there would be two obstacles.

• The US Senate. The US has a very high bar for entering into treaties compared to most countries -- a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate, plus the President. There is a reason that the US is not party to some important treaties that many other countries are party to (no ratification approval from the Senate) but still is a signatory to the treaty and acts as if it is a member, like UNCLOS. So it'd require a supermajority in the Senate to rejoin. And for NATO, "pretending to be in" doesn't really have the same effect -- under UNSC rules, war is legal, whether or not the UNSC is onboard, as long as it's defensive and the justification is actual membership in a collective security arrangement. That is, normally a country isn't supposed to go to war without UNSC approval (on which Russia has a veto which it would probably use) unless it is in defense of itself or an allied member who has been attacked. While the US probably has the practical ability to go to war without UNSC approval if it really, really wants to -- who would stop it? -- and has certainly come up with rather tortured legal justifications in the past when it couldn't get explicit UNSC sign-off (e.g. the Iraq War), it does establish political and legal barriers. In the past, the US has not shown a lot of willingness to enter into major direct conflict in Europe without a treaty commitment -- like, say, Ukraine or Finland in the Winter War. That being said, the US did enter the Korean War without a treaty commitment, so...shrugs.

• Other NATO members. This requires unanimity among all NATO members. If you remember how difficult it was to get NATO approval for Finland and Sweden, the bar is the same for the US...but the impact of the US being in or out is a whole lot more consequential than Finland or Sweden being in or out. I mean, if I were the Kremlin and decided upon a confrontation path, I would pull pretty much any lever available to me to ensure that at least one member did not approve the US re-entering.

Plus, you either protect Europe from Russia or you invade Greenland. Can't be both.

Allowed? Who's going to stop him? Is it not clear at this point that he does not care about the law?