Supporters of a treaty meant to reduce the risk of accidental war are sounding the alarm President Trump Donald John TrumpObama calls on Senate not to fill Ginsburg's vacancy until after election Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement Progressive group to spend M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy MORE could withdraw from the agreement as the world's attention is consumed by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Open Skies Treaty allows the pact's 35 signatories, including the United States and Russia, to fly unarmed observation flights over each other's territories with the intention of providing transparency about military activities to avoid miscalculations that could lead to war.

Administration officials insist a review is ongoing as four top Democrats warned this past week that withdrawing "in the midst of a global health crisis is not only shortsighted, but also unconscionable."

ADVERTISEMENT

“We are deeply troubled by the Trump administration’s sustained push to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty and we reject the administration’s arguments for pursuing withdrawal,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith David (Adam) Adam SmithWhen 'Buy American' and common sense collide Overnight Defense: Marine Corps brushes off criticism of Marines' appearance in GOP convention video | US troops injured in collision with Russian vehicle in Syria | Dems ask for probe of Vindman retaliation allegations Democrats press Pentagon watchdog to probe allegations of retaliation against Vindman brothers MORE (D-Wash.), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel Eliot Lance EngelHouse panel halts contempt proceedings against Pompeo after documents turned over Engel subpoenas US global media chief Michael Pack The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by The Air Line Pilots Association - Pence lauds Harris as 'experienced debater'; Trump, Biden diverge over debate prep MORE (D-N.Y.), Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. Jack Reed John (Jack) Francis ReedWhen 'Buy American' and common sense collide Hillicon Valley: Russia 'amplifying' concerns around mail-in voting to undermine election | Facebook and Twitter take steps to limit Trump remarks on voting | Facebook to block political ads ahead of election Top Democrats press Trump to sanction Russian individuals over 2020 election interference efforts MORE (D-R.I.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez Robert (Bob) MenendezKasie Hunt to host lead-in show for MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' Senators ask for removal of tariffs on EU food, wine, spirits: report VOA visa decision could hobble Venezuela coverage MORE (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This effort appears intended to limit appropriate congressional consultation on, and scrutiny of, the decision,” they added.

A House aide told The Hill that Defense Secretary Mark Esper Mark EsperTop admiral: 'No condition' where US should conduct nuclear test 'at this time' Overnight Defense: Trump hosts Israel, UAE, Bahrain for historic signing l Air Force reveals it secretly built and flew new fighter jet l Coronavirus creates delay in Pentagon research for alternative to 'forever chemicals' Oldest living US World War II veteran turns 111 MORE and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Michael (Mike) Richard PompeoHouse panel halts contempt proceedings against Pompeo after documents turned over Outgoing ambassador to China slams Beijing over coronavirus: 'Could have been contained in Wuhan' Hillicon Valley: FBI chief says Russia is trying to interfere in election to undermine Biden | Treasury Dept. sanctions Iranian government-backed hackers MORE two weeks ago agreed to a withdrawal despite two planned National Security Council (NSC) meetings on the issue being canceled in February and March.

“Their decision to withdraw prompted strong objection from the UK, France, Germany and Poland,” the aide added.

A Democratic aide in the Senate similarly said “we have heard that Secretary Esper and Secretary Pompeo agreed to something” without NSC meetings, adding that “this week, French officials reiterated they object to any decision to withdraw from Open Skies.”

The aide said they haven't heard from the Germans, United Kingdom or Poland recently, but “they are already on record against a U.S. withdrawal from Open Skies.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The Pentagon referred The Hill to the White House for comment.

A senior administration official and the State Department told The Hill a review process into the treaty is ongoing, but did not dispute the aides’ characterization.

“The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on Open Skies,” the senior administration official said. “We are currently reviewing the costs and benefits associated with our participation and considering all options under the treaty to achieve our national security objectives.”

A State Department official, meanwhile, said the department does “not comment on rumors.”

“We continue to implement the treaty, although flights are currently suspended due to COVID-19. Our review process continues,” the person said.

The National Defense Authorization Act signed into law in December requires the administration to notify Congress 120 days before it officially submits an intent to withdraw to the other treaty members. Under the process laid in the treaty, a formal notice of intent kicks off a six-month period before the withdrawal goes through.

The Open Skies Treaty, which went into force in 2002, has long been in the crosshairs of defense hawks, who argue Russian restrictions give Moscow an unfair advantage over the United States.

Russia in the past has restricted flights over Kaliningrad and areas near its border with the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Because of those restrictions, an August report from the State Department said “the United States continued to assess that Russia was in violation of the Open Skies Treaty” in 2018, a determination first made in 2017.

In response to Russia’s restrictions, in 2017, the United States restricted flights over some of its territory, including parts of Hawaii.

Cruz, Cotton and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr Richard Mauze BurrRep. Mark Walker says he's been contacted about Liberty University vacancy Overnight Defense: Trump rejects major cut to military health care | Senate report says Trump campaign's Russia contacts posed 'grave' threat Senate report describes closer ties between 2016 Trump campaign, Russia MORE (R-N.C.) last month also penned a letter to Trump arguing for a withdrawal.

“Even under conditions of good faith Russian implementation, the treaty is at best unnecessary and at worst a threat, since the U.S. does not gain additional intelligence beyond our far more advanced capabilities, while the Russians use their flights to gain a view of the homeland that is otherwise inaccessible to them,” they wrote.

But supporters of the treaty argue it’s about more than intelligence gathering for the United States, saying U.S. partners without sophisticated spy satellites benefit from the unclassified imagery.

ADVERTISEMENT

The agreement has also been used to signal U.S. support for its allies and partners, such as with flights over Ukraine following Russia’s seizure of naval ships in 2018 and invasion of Crimea in 2014.

“At a time when tensions with Moscow are on the rise, the Open Skies Treaty serves as a very useful tool for the United States and our allies to monitor Russian military activities,” former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) wrote in a memo to the Trump administration released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative this week. “Unilateral U.S. withdrawal from Open Skies would undermine American allies and friends in Europe.”

Moscow’s flight restrictions, they added, “are related to underlying territorial and political issues between Russia and some of its neighbors” and should be addressed “through professional, pragmatic diplomacy, not by abandoning treaty commitments.”

The senior administration official told The Hill the administration is “committed to arms control efforts that advance U.S., allied and partner security, are verifiable and enforceable, and include partners that comply responsibly with their obligations.”

Some Republican lawmakers, too, continue to support the treaty.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told The Hill he is “deeply disappointed in Secretary Esper’s shortsighted reversal of DoD’s longstanding support for the Open Skies Treaty."

ADVERTISEMENT

“Open Skies remains our only ability to get direct access to Russian airfields and airspace, and every experienced operational commander knows all too well that satellites simply can’t do it all,” he said in a statement. “Our smaller NATO allies want and depend on the information they receive from these missions and value these opportunities to partner with us. This treaty builds trust through transparency, something you can’t surge in a crisis. This is a mistake.”

Bacon and fellow Nebraska Republican Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Jeffrey (Jeff) Lane FortenberrySave wildlife, save ourselves Lawmakers cry foul as Trump considers retreating from Open Skies Treaty Where do we go from here? Conservation can show the way MORE, whose districts include Offutt Air Force Base where the planes used to conduct the flights are based, are also co-sponsors of a bill from Rep. Jimmy Panetta James Varni PanettaOn The Money: McConnell previews GOP coronavirus bill | Senate panel advances Trump Fed nominee who recently supported gold standard | Economists warn about scaled-back unemployment benefits Bipartisan bill introduced to provide tax credit to food and beverage distributors Overnight Defense: US formally rejects Beijing's South China Sea claims | House set to consider defense policy bill next week | 57 injured as firefighters battle warship blaze MORE (D-Calif.) that would block a U.S. withdrawal.

Amid the administration’s review of the treaty, Esper told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month the Pentagon would hold off on replacing the aging OC-135 observation planes used for treaty flights.

The Russians, Esper said at the hearing, “have been cheating for many years.”

“I raised this at the defense ministerial last month with all of our NATO partners, that we need to speak out more clearly about Russian noncompliance,” he continued. “I have a lot of concerns about the treaty as it stands now.”

In their letter, Cruz, Cotton and Burr said the cost to replace the planes “would alone justify withdrawing from the treaty.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Congress appropriated $41.5 million this fiscal year toward replacing the jets, with the entire project estimated to cost $250 million.

Smith, Engel, Reed and Menendez called the argument that replacing the planes is too costly “puzzling.”

“The total cost of replacing the aircraft is a tiny portion of the overall defense budget, representing less than one half of one percent of the topline,” they said. “We urge the administration to reverse course on this reckless policy decision rather than ramming it through while our country and the entire world grapples with an unprecedented crisis.”