A resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships over multilateral security partnerships and institutions.
S. Res. 672 is a sense-of-Congress resolution stating that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships over multilateral security partnerships and institutions. The resolution argues that one-on-one security agreements give the United States more leverage, are easier to negotiate and amend, and better allow the country to tailor diplomacy to the needs of individual partners. It frames bilateral arrangements as the most effective way to advance U.S. interests, strengthen defense cooperation, and encourage smaller and medium-sized states to align with the United States as their preferred great-power partner.
The resolution also contains a broader critique of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Health Organization. It asserts that these institutions have become costly, ineffective, or misaligned with U.S. interests, and it specifically criticizes the UN for underrepresenting U.S. influence, NATO for not sufficiently serving U.S. needs, and the WHO for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged deference to China. Based on these findings, the Senate would declare that the United States should withdraw support from multilateral security agreements or institutions that undermine U.S. interests.
Because this is a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, it does not itself change statutory law, create new legal obligations, or appropriate funds. Its practical effect would be political and advisory: it signals congressional support for a foreign policy shift toward bilateral security agreements and away from multilateral security frameworks. The resolution could influence executive-branch diplomacy, treaty posture, and future congressional debate over U.S. participation in or funding for international institutions, but it would not directly amend the U.S. Code or alter the legal status of any existing alliance or organization.
No committee debate or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the text of the resolution itself. The resolution is strongly supportive of bilateralism and strongly critical of multilateral institutions, indicating a clear pro-U.S.-first, skeptical stance toward organizations such as the UN, NATO, and WHO. The overall tone is assertive and confrontational rather than compromise-oriented, with the stated goal of redirecting U.S. security policy toward more selective partnerships.
The main points of contention are the resolution’s rejection of multilateral security institutions and its sweeping criticisms of specific international bodies. Supporters would likely view bilateral agreements as more flexible, more accountable, and better aligned with U.S. interests, while critics would argue that multilateral alliances and institutions provide burden-sharing, legitimacy, and collective security benefits that bilateral deals cannot fully replace. The resolution’s language about the United Nations, NATO, the World Health Organization, China, Taiwan, Marxism, and climate alarmism is especially likely to draw opposition from lawmakers who favor traditional alliance structures or who object to the resolution’s broad ideological claims and accusations.