On March 1, 2025, Elon Musk, the billionaire innovator and head of the United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), sent shockwaves through the global political landscape with a simple yet provocative statement on X: “I agree.” His response was to a user’s suggestion that the United States should withdraw from both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations (UN).
I agree https://t.co/ZhjBXCTQfp
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 2, 2025
Coming from a man with a direct line to President Donald Trump and a growing influence over U.S. policy, Musk’s endorsement of this idea has sparked fierce debate. Is this a bold step toward reasserting American autonomy, or a dangerous move that could destabilize the world order?
Musk’s transition from tech titan to a key figure in the Trump administration has been swift and unconventional. Appointed to lead DOGE—an initiative aimed at slashing federal spending and bureaucracy—Musk has wasted no time pushing boundaries. His mandate includes identifying inefficiencies, and for Musk, international commitments like NATO and the UN appear to be prime targets. Reports indicate that the U.S. spends roughly $50 billion annually on NATO-related defense efforts and contributes about $700 million directly to the UN budget.
In an era of soaring national debt and domestic priorities, Musk seems to view these organizations as relics of a bygone age, draining resources that could be redirected elsewhere.
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has signaled a retreat from global institutions. The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 set a precedent, and Musk’s latest comments align with a broader pattern of skepticism toward multilateralism. But leaving NATO and the UN would mark a seismic shift, one that could redefine America’s role on the world stage.
Why Leave NATO and the UN?
The arguments for withdrawal hinge on sovereignty and cost. NATO, formed in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion, relies heavily on U.S. military might—about 70% of the alliance’s defense spending comes from American taxpayers.
Critics, including some within the Trump camp, argue that Europe, now a wealthy and capable region, should shoulder more of its own defense burden. With Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine and China’s rise as a global power, they question whether NATO’s Cold War framework still fits today’s threats, like cyberattacks and economic warfare.
The UN faces similar scrutiny. As the largest single contributor to its budget, the U.S. often finds itself at odds with a General Assembly dominated by nations with opposing interests.
The organization’s bloated bureaucracy and frequent inability to enforce resolutions—such as those on human rights or conflict zones—fuel perceptions of ineffectiveness. Musk, a problem-solver by nature, may see these bodies as inefficient systems ripe for disruption, much like the corporations he’s revolutionized.
Yet, the risks are profound. NATO’s Article 5, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all, has been a cornerstone of Western security for over seven decades. The U.S. exit could unravel this deterrence, emboldening adversaries like Russia, which has already tested NATO’s resolve in Eastern Europe.
Analysts warn that Europe, despite its economic strength, lacks the unified military capacity to replace American leadership. A fractured alliance might invite instability, not just in Europe but across the globe, as allies like Japan and South Korea reassess their own security pacts with the U.S.
The UN, for all its flaws, provides a platform for diplomacy and crisis management. Without U.S. participation, its ability to mediate conflicts—like those in the Middle East or Africa—would weaken further.
America’s veto power in the Security Council, a tool for shaping global norms, would vanish, potentially ceding influence to rivals like China and Russia. Isolationism might save dollars in the short term, but it could leave the U.S. facing a more chaotic world with fewer levers to pull.
Musk’s Vision vs. Global Reality
Musk’s stance reflects his signature approach: challenge the status quo, prioritize efficiency, and think big. His success with Tesla and SpaceX proves he can turn audacious ideas into reality. But governing a superpower isn’t like running a company.
International alliances are messy, interdependent systems built on trust and history—not easily dismantled without unintended consequences.
Public reaction, as seen in online discussions, is polarized. Some hail Musk as a visionary unshackling America from outdated obligations; others see him as a reckless disruptor risking decades of stability.
The Trump administration’s signals—coupled with Musk’s growing clout—suggest this isn’t just rhetoric. If pursued, withdrawal would require congressional approval and could face legal and diplomatic hurdles, but the idea alone is shifting the Overton window.
For now, Musk’s comment remains a personal opinion, not official policy. No formal proposal has emerged from the White House or DOGE. Yet, its timing—amid Trump’s second term and a push for government overhaul—hints at a broader agenda.
European leaders are already voicing alarm, with NATO’s future hanging in the balance as Trump engages with figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The UN, too, faces an uncertain path as America’s commitment wavers.
Elon Musk has never shied away from bold bets. But exiting NATO and the UN isn’t a moonshot—it’s a gamble with the world as the stakes. Whether this vision gains traction will depend on political will, public support, and the unpredictable interplay of global events. One thing is clear: the debate Musk has reignited won’t fade quietly.