Reading mode Exit reading mode

Open Skies Treaty Withdrawal: Unilateral Exit from 35-Nation Arms Control Agreement

The Open Skies Treaty allows its 35 signatories — including the United States, Russia, and most NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations — to conduct scheduled unarmed reconnaissance flights over each other's territory. The flights collect imagery that member states share, building collective military transparency. Trump administration officials argued Russia had violated the treaty by restricting U.S. flight paths over certain territories. European allies agreed Russia had compliance issues but argued the U.S. should address them within the treaty framework rather than withdraw, and warned that U.S. withdrawal would give Russia an excuse to exit entirely. Russia did subsequently withdraw from the treaty in January 2021, after Trump's withdrawal had set the precedent. The Biden administration reviewed but did not rejoin the treaty due to concerns about congressional opposition.

Record summary

Grade

Grade 1 of 5: Significant Democratic Concern

Actions that weaken democratic institutions, suppress political participation, or restrict fundamental freedoms without reaching the threshold of a rights violation attributable to a specific victim class. Scale and definitions

Status
Concluded
Incident date
Record updated
Location
Washington, D.C.
Category
Foreign Policy & War
Legal posture
Executive action
War-crime classification
Enabling conduct
Verification
Independently verified
ICC relevance
No
Sources
4 cited
Stable ID
trump-first-term-open-skies-treaty-withdrawal
Victims
Post-Cold War arms control architecture built over three decades; European allies whose security interests depended on the treaty's transparency mechanisms; the principle that multilateral agreements constrain state behavior through mutual verification rather than unilateral exit
Alleged responsible parties
  • Donald Trump, President; announced U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty citing Russian violations; rejected allied pleas to remain in the treaty and address violations within the framework; U.S. formally withdrew November 22, 2020; Russia subsequently exited the treaty in January 2021— White House

Key points

  • The Open Skies Treaty, signed in 1992 and in force since 2002, allows its 35 signatories to conduct unarmed aerial surveillance flights over each other's territory; the flights collect imagery that is shared among member states, providing collective military transparency and reducing the risk of surprise military action; it was a key instrument of post-Cold War confidence-building between NATO and Russia
  • The Trump administration alleged Russia had violated the treaty by restricting U.S. flight paths over certain areas, including near Kaliningrad and in the South Caucasus; the administration's position was that these violations made continued U.S. participation untenable; allied governments acknowledged Russian compliance issues but argued the correct response was to remain and address violations through treaty mechanisms
  • European NATO allies — Germany, France, and others — urged the U.S. not to withdraw; they argued that U.S. departure would undermine the treaty's value without resolving the Russian compliance issues, would give Russia a pretext to exit entirely, and would deprive Europe of an important transparency mechanism at a time of heightened tension with Russia
  • The prediction proved accurate: Russia announced its own withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty in January 2021, two months after the U.S. formally exited and one month before Russia's military buildup around Ukraine intensified; Russian officials cited the U.S. withdrawal as justification; the treaty's effectiveness was fatally undermined
  • The Open Skies Treaty withdrawal was part of a pattern of Trump administration exits from multilateral agreements: the Paris Climate Accord (2017), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (2017), the Iran nuclear deal (2018), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (2019), and the Arms Trade Treaty (2019) — a series of withdrawals that allies argued cumulatively undermined U.S. credibility as a treaty partner
  • The Biden administration reviewed the treaty but did not rejoin, citing concerns about congressional opposition and the changed landscape following the Russian invasion of Ukraine; the treaty effectively ceased to function with both the U.S. and Russia outside it; the withdrawal represents a permanent loss of a verification mechanism that had built confidence for nearly two decades

Overview

The Open Skies Treaty gave 35 nations — NATO and former adversaries — the ability to fly unarmed surveillance aircraft over each other's territory and share the imagery. For nearly two decades it built military transparency between the United States, Russia, and their allies. Trump withdrew from it in November 2020, citing Russian violations. Russia withdrew in January 2021. The treaty no longer functions.

What the Treaty Did

The concept is straightforward: states are less likely to fear surprise attack if they can see what their neighbors are doing. The Open Skies Treaty formalized mutual aerial inspection as a confidence-building mechanism. Member states could schedule surveillance flights, collect imagery, and share it. The flights were unarmed and subject to strict rules. The transparency they provided was collective — everyone could see.

The treaty was signed in 1992 as the Cold War ended. It entered into force in 2002. It covered 35 states. It worked.

The Withdrawal and the Warning

European allies acknowledged the Russian compliance issues the U.S. cited. They argued the answer was to remain in the treaty, challenge Russia on specific violations, and use the framework to pressure compliance — not to exit and give Russia cover to do the same.

The warning was explicit: U.S. withdrawal would give Russia a pretext to exit and would destroy the treaty's value. Germany, France, and other NATO allies made this case directly to the administration.

The U.S. withdrew on November 22, 2020. Russia announced its withdrawal in January 2021. The treaty was finished.

The Pattern

The Open Skies withdrawal was the fifth major multilateral treaty exit of the Trump administration. The Paris Climate Accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Iran nuclear deal, and the INF Treaty had all preceded it. Each exit was presented as responding to specific failures of those agreements; each was opposed by allies who argued that remaining and working within frameworks was better than unilateral departure.

The cumulative effect was to raise questions in allied capitals about U.S. reliability as a treaty partner — a concern that would be raised repeatedly throughout the administration.

Update log

  1. Based on November 2020 formal U.S. withdrawal.

Sequence of events

  1. Open Skies Treaty signed

    The Treaty on Open Skies is signed in Helsinki by 23 states, including the United States, Russia, and most NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations. It takes a decade for sufficient ratifications to enter into force.

  2. Treaty enters into force

    The Open Skies Treaty enters into force in January 2002. Member states begin conducting unarmed aerial surveillance flights over each other's territory, sharing the collected imagery. The treaty builds transparency between NATO and Russia during a period of relative stability.

  3. Trump announces U.S. withdrawal — European allies urge reconsideration

    The Trump administration announces the U.S. will withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, citing Russian violations of flight restrictions over certain territories. European NATO allies immediately urge the U.S. to remain and address violations within the treaty framework rather than exiting.

  4. U.S. formally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty

    The United States formally withdraws from the Open Skies Treaty six months after announcing its intention to do so. The withdrawal takes effect without a change in Russian compliance with the treaty provisions the U.S. had cited as justification.

  5. Russia announces withdrawal — cites U.S. departure as reason

    Russia announces its intention to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, citing the U.S. withdrawal as its justification. This is precisely the outcome European allies had warned would result from the U.S. departure. The treaty is effectively gutted with both major military powers outside it.

Sources

  1. Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Open Skies Treaty, Citing Russian Violations — The New York Times
  2. European allies urge U.S. to stay in Open Skies Treaty even as Trump announces withdrawal — The Washington Post
  3. U.S. completes withdrawal from Open Skies Treaty — The Associated Press
  4. The Open Skies Treaty at a Glance — Arms Control Association archived ✓

How this record was published

Manually curated This entry was added directly and does not carry an automated audit trail.

About our editorial methodology →

Related records

Similar by category, grade and tags.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Trump's Systematic Undermining of NATO: Threatening Withdrawal, Refusing Article 5

    Trump's first clear signal came in May 2017 at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where he delivered a speech at the unveiling of a 9/11 memorial wall without explicitly affirming Article 5 collective defense — the alliance's core commitment. His aides later said the affirmation had been removed from the speech at Trump's direction. Over the following years, Trump repeatedly demanded NATO allies pay 2% of GDP on defense, threatened withdrawal, and reportedly told European leaders in private that the U.S. might not come to their aid. In February 2024, during the 2024 campaign, Trump stated publicly that he would 'encourage' Russia to attack NATO members who he thought hadn't paid enough.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    NATO Article 5 Threats: Encouraging Russia to Attack Allies Who Don't Pay

    NATO's collective defense commitment under Article 5 — that an attack against one member is an attack against all — was the foundational guarantee that had maintained European security for 75 years. Trump's statement that he would encourage Russia to attack members he deemed to be underpaying undermined the credibility of the deterrence that Article 5 provided. NATO allies condemned the statements as dangerous; European leaders described them as a fundamental threat to the alliance's deterrence value. In his second term, Trump continued pressing NATO members with threats of U.S. withdrawal contingent on spending levels, while simultaneously pursuing a Ukraine peace framework that European allies described as favorable to Russia.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Trump Administration Explored Resuming Nuclear Testing — First Time Since 1992

    The Washington Post reported in May 2020 that senior Trump administration officials — including representatives from the Defense and State Departments — discussed at a meeting whether to conduct a nuclear test explosion. The discussions were presented as leverage in arms control negotiations with Russia and China. No test took place, but the public discussion of resuming testing — after a 28-year U.S. moratorium — was treated by arms control experts as a significant destabilization of the global non-proliferation architecture. The Trump administration had already withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and signaled disinterest in extending New START.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Helsinki Summit: Trump Sided With Putin Over His Own CIA on Election Interference

    Trump and Putin met privately for approximately two hours with only translators present; there was no U.S. notetaker and Trump reportedly had his interpreter's notes confiscated. At the public press conference, Trump said he didn't 'see any reason why it would be Russia' that interfered in the election — contradicting the unanimous assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. When asked the next day, Trump claimed he had misspoken and meant to say 'wouldn't' instead of 'would.' The statement provoked condemnation from Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, and dozens of Republican members of Congress.