Updated May 21, 2020, at 7:16 p.m. EST.<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The Trump administration has made a final decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty<\/a>, sources confirmed to Defense News on Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The news was confirmed by U.S. President Donald Trump midday, followed by a formal announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the administration will make a formal notification on Friday, kicking off a six-month clock before a formal exit occurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe may, however, reconsider our withdrawal should Russia return to full compliance with the Treaty,\u201d Pompeo said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What \u201cfull compliance\u201d means, however, is unclear. Chris Ford, assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, told reporters there are \u201cmany variables\u201d as to what that would entail, particularly as a number of American complaints about Russian activities involve behaviors that, Ford acknowledged, are \u201cnot in fact violations of the treaty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an example of the latter, Ford pointed to restrictions on flights over Kaliningrad. Russia has in the past restricted the length of flights over the city, which is not a direct violation but contradicts the confidence-building nature of the agreement, Ford said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That Russia will sometimes loosen those restrictions, such as earlier this year<\/a> for an Open Skies flyover by Estonian, Lithuanian and American observers, is proof that the Kremlin \u201cclearly regards its Open Skies legal obligations as something akin more to guidelines, or options, for them,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s the combination of all those things that has led to this decision. And so were Russia to return to compliance, we would have to presumably make that decision at the time about what to do with it, do in response to that, on the basis of the circumstances that have changed at that time,\u201d Ford said. \u201cJust as our decision now has many variables, we have to sort of see what the net impact of Russian behavior at that time in the world is. But that\u2019s a conversation we would very much like to have, if Russia would give the world the opportunity to see that happen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a statement released online, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the move \u201cvery regrettable” and hit at the Trump administration\u2019s \u201cgeneral policy\u201d of going after arms control agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International discussions<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The administration Thursday morning began informing the other 34 members in the agreement, which allows mutual reconnaissance flights<\/a> over the member nations, including Russia. An emergency meeting of NATO members is scheduled for Friday in Brussels, per multiple reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The move, first reported Thursday<\/a> by The New York Times, was not a surprise, as administration officials signaled to European allies<\/a> toward the end of last year that unless major changes were made to the overflight agreement, the U.S. would consider withdrawing. However, there had been little movement in the months since, giving advocates hope that a decision to exit the treaty had not been finalized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt was pretty clear from meetings that it was basically a done deal and it was just a matter of when,\u201d one European source said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allies generally argue the treaty is a valuable channel for transparency and dialogue between Russia and the United States, the world\u2019s top two nuclear superpowers. Critics of the treaty have argued that the U.S. gets better intelligence from satellite systems and that the funding to replace the aging OC-135<\/a> aircraft can be spent elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A second European source acknowledged that Russia has not always complied with the treaty, but said there was a sense that those issues could be resolved. The source predicted that those NATO members who are also part of the treaty will remain, but was unclear what Russia will do next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf you\u2019re Russia, you can stay in and take the moral high ground, say, \u2018We still honor international treaties, even if America doesn\u2019t,\u2019 or you can say the treaty is diminished beyond usefulness and you pull out. I don\u2019t know which they\u2019ll do, but neither is good for NATO,” the source said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The source added that while it is true the U.S. gets its best intelligence from its satellites as opposed to OC-135 flights, focusing entirely on that is \u201cselfish\u201d because \u201ca lot of NATO allies rely on Open Skies for visibility into what goes on in Russia.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Pentagon released a statement late on Thursday, saying \u201cThe United States has been in close communication with our Allies and partners regarding our review of the Treaty and we will explore options to provide additional imagery products to Allies to mitigate any gaps that may result from this withdrawal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Democrats and arms control advocates quickly denounced the administration\u2019s withdrawal plans as dangerous and destabilizing to America\u2019s relationships with allies, with former CIA director Michael Hayden, a frequent Trump critic, decrying the move as \u201cinsane.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conservative voices applauded the move as Trump standing up to Russia\u2019s violations of the treaty. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., expressed his belief the funding that would have gone into repairing the OC-135 should now go toward broader nuclear modernization<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., blasted the administration for defying a requirement in the 2020 defense policy law that Trump first give Congress 120 days\u2019 notice. Multiple communications with Congress on the issue had \u201cgone unanswered,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Administration\u2019s decision to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty is a slap in the face to our allies in Europe, leaves our deployed forces in the region at risk, and is in blatant violation of the law,\u201d they said in a joint statement. \u201cThis decision weakens our national security interests, isolates the United States since the Treaty will continue without us, and abandons a useful tool to hold Russia accountable.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n When signing the defense policy legislation into law, Trump indicated he didn\u2019t consider himself bound by the requirement, citing his executive powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only actions for which such advance certification or notification is feasible and consistent with the President\u2019s exclusive constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and as the sole representative of the Nation in foreign affairs,” the president\u2019s Dec. 20 signing statement read.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughout its term, the Trump administration has been skeptical of arms control agreements. The U.S. and Russia walked away from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty<\/a> last August, and officials have expressed skepticism about renewing the New START nuclear agreement with Russia, which expires in 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n