Thomas Massie and Mike Lee advocate for US to dump NATO
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Sen. Mike Lee are advocating for the U.S. to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organiation (NATO).
"If you could snap your fingers and get us out of NATO today, would you?" Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked in a post on X.
"Yes," Massie replied.
Massie And Other Republicans Push 'National Constitutional Carry Act' To Protect Americans' Gun Rights
The House lawmaker has previously called the alliance — which includes the U.S. and scads of other nations — a "Cold War relic."
"I would withdraw us from NATO," Massie said, the Washington Post reported in 2022. "It's a Cold War relic. Our involvement should have ceased when the [Berlin] wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed."
Read On The Fox News App
Lee has been critical of the NATO alliance, describing it as a "great deal for Europe," but a "raw deal for America."
Mike Lee Floats Allowing Private Parties To Target Drug Cartels For Profit
The senator has called for the U.S. to consider departing NATO, and has in some cases explicitly endorsed the prospect of a U.S. withdrawal.
"NATO members must pay up now," Lee asserted in a tweet. "If they don't—and maybe even if they do—the U.S. should seriously consider leaving NATO," he continued. "We won the Cold War," the senator noted. "A long time ago, in fact."
"Amen!" Lee exclaimed in a tweet when responding to someone who had declared, "Let's leave NATO."
"Let's go!" the lawmaker wrote in response to two separate posts suggesting that President Donald Trump should withdraw the U.S. from NATO.
Mike Lee Continues Calling For Abolition Of Tsa
Part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which was signed by President Joe Biden in late 2023, placed into U.S. law language that declares, "The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress."Original article source: Thomas Massie and Mike Lee advocate for US to dump NATO
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No more ‘peace dividend'
One consequence of spending more on benefits is that there is less to spend elsewhere, notably on defence. The so-called 'peace dividend' that Western governments splurged after the end of the Cold War has left us vulnerable to a resurgence of precisely the sort of international tensions we are seeing now. Money that in the past would have bolstered armed forces now goes on social programmes that political leaders are unprepared to unwind because so many voters are dependent on them. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, was in London for talks with Sir Keir Starmer yesterday as part of a tour of capitals designed to get member states to commit to spending much more on defence. In a speech at the Chatham House think-tank, he called for a 'quantum leap' in collective security just to maintain deterrence. 'Our militaries need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation and medical support,' he said. At the weekend, Russia deployed an estimated 500 missiles and drones in attacks on Ukraine, partly in response to Kyiv's extraordinary coup in destroying Russian bombers based in Siberia last week. The huge amounts of ordnance involved are indicative of the scale of modern warfare. Mr Rutte wants Nato members to commit about 5 per cent of national wealth to defence, though without saying by when. Yet Sir Keir could only reaffirm his Government's ambition to increase spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, rising to 3 per cent in the next parliament if circumstances allow. But they will do so only if he can get to grips with spending in other areas. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
42 minutes ago
Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Adults living in the U.S. illegally will be excluded from a state-run health care program under an overall budget deal that the closely divided Minnesota Legislature convened to pass in a special session Monday. Repealing a 2023 state law that made those immigrants eligible for the MinnesotaCare program for the working poor was a priority for Republicans in the negotiations that produced the budget agreement. The Legislature is split 101-100, with the House tied and Democrats holding just a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the health care compromise was a bitter pill for Democrats to accept. The change is expected to affect about 17,000 residents. After an emotional near four-hour debate, the House aroved the bill 68-65. Under the agreement, the top House Democratic leader, Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, was the only member of her caucus to vote yes. The bill then went to the Senate, where it passed 37-30. Democratic Majority Leader Erin Murphy, of St. Paul, called it 'a wound on the soul of Minnesota,' but kept her promise to vote yes as part of the deal, calling it "among the most painful votes I've ever taken." Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, has promised to sign the legislation, and all 13 other bills scheduled for action in the special session, to complete a $66 billion, two-year budget that will take effect July 1. 'This is 100% about the GOP campaign against immigrants,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Jamie Long, of Minneapolis, who voted no. 'From Trump's renewed travel ban announced this week, to his effort to expel those with protected status, to harassing students here to study, to disproportionate military and law enforcement responses that we've seen from Minneapolis to L.A., this all comes back to attacking immigrants and the name of dividing us.' But GOP Rep. Jeff Backer, of Browns Valley, the lead author of the bill, said taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize health care for people who aren't in the country legally. Backer said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed freezing enrollment for immigrants without legal status in a similar state-funded program and that Illinois' Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, has proposed cutting a similar program. He said residents can still buy health insurance on the private market regardless of their immigration status. 'This is about being fiscally responsible,' Backer said. Enrollment by people who entered the country illegally in MinnesotaCare has run triple the initial projections, which Republicans said could have pushed the costs over $600 million over the next four years. Critics said the change won't save any money because those affected will forego preventive care and need much more expensive care later. 'People don't suddenly stop getting sick when they don't have insurance, but they do put off seeking care until a condition gets bad enough to require a visit to the emergency room, increasing overall health care costs for everyone,' Bernie Burnham, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, told reporters at a news conference organized by the critics. Walz and legislative leaders agreed on the broad framework for the budget over four weeks ago, contrasting the bipartisan cooperation that produced it with the deep divisions at the federal level in Washington. But with the tie in the House and the razor-thin Senate Democratic majority, few major policy initiatives got off the ground before the regular session ended May 19. Leaders announced Friday that the details were settled and that they had enough votes to pass everything in the budget package.
42 minutes ago
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down," Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. ... I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials sued the Trump administration Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 4,000 that has been authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here," Padilla added. Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.
