Grateful that Tim Kaine and Marco Rubio (of all people) passed bill preventing President from leaving NATO unilaterly

[crimycarny]

I was googling "Does the President have the authority to leave NATO" (for obvious reasons) and came across an article about a bill Congress approved that would prevent the President of the United States from leaving NATO unilaterally.

"Under the measure, advocated by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the president would be prohibited from withdrawing from NATO without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or separate legislation passed by Congress."


https://www.kaine.senate.gov/in-the-news/congress-approves-bill-barring-presidents-from-unilaterally-exiting-nato

Of course, Trump has never been one to pay attention to the rules, but at least this bill gives a legal hurdle he'd have to overcome. And if Marco Rubio, of all people, joined together with Tim Kaine to pass this bill, that tells me the majority of the GOP wouldn't vote to withdraw from NATO.

[Lovie777]

1. What?..............

[WarGamer]

2. good point!!

[wryter2000]

3. Has this passed?

I haven’t heard of this.

That might keep Putin to stop after conquering Ukraine.

[SoCalDavidS]

6. Ukraine Will Be Decimated And/Or Under Russia Control By The End Of 2025 nt

[paleotn]

23. EU will kick in. They have to. It's on their doorstep.

[wryter2000]

30. I know

It’s beyond horrible

But it might keep him from doing the same thing in Poland, etc.

[crimycarny]

8. Yes, it passed 12/16/2023

Many replies claim skepticism that the Supreme Court wouldn't overrule and allow Trump to leave NATO, or that the Senate will do Trump's bidding. Those are all possibilities of course but seeing that Marco Rubio, of all people, was one of the co-sponsors, gives me a tiny bit of hope that even the GOP understands what a disaster leaving NATO would be for their own self-interests (even if they don't care about the US).

[Sogo]

16. Did it pass both House, and Biden signed it?

It doesn't carry any weight otherwise....Unless there's something that was left out of my civics class....

[paleotn]

24. Part of the 2024 national defense authorization act. Signed by Biden in 2023.

Shithead may be able to limit participation but cannot unilaterally withdraw US membership.

[PortTack]

25. Yes it passed both houses and President Biden signed it. I worry that with a trifecta they will repeal it

[Irish_Dem]

4. SC ruled Trump does not have to follow the law while in office.

And apparently out of office as well.

[SoCalDavidS]

5. They'll Fix That, Don't Worry

With a 53-47 majority, and their Cult Leader in charge, he'll pressure them to undo that as soon as possible.

[UTUSN]

7. Knr

[johnnyfins]

9. There is already talk of little Marco

For Secretary of State.

UnBeFuckingLievable

[keepthemhonestO]

10. Hell just

He'll just blackmail the Congress members into doing what he wants. Yeah plus SC said he can shoot someone on 5th Ave and now it's legal.

[crimycarny]

11. Maybe

But at least there is something in the way right now and it won't be just the stroke of a pen.

[HereForTheParty]

12. NATO doesn't require we take any military action

in the event a member country is attacked. We do as we see necessary based on our assessment of the situation.

[crimycarny]

14. But there is strength in numbers

If someone attacks the US I'd like to know other countries have our backs. Obviously, those countries have the same discretion, but the coalition helps give other enemy countries pause. Without the US as part of NATO, expect Russia and North Korea to feel the freedom to attack other countries. This weakens the US as well and makes us vulnerable.

[HereForTheParty]

15. I agree with all of that

Just pointing out that staying NATO doesn't really compel Trump to provide military assistance to another NATO country.

[crimycarny]

18. Ah, got it

Very good point, I misunderstood what you meant. Yeah...ugh...Trump will try to use military aid like he did FEMA aid.

[ancianita]

19. What are you talking about? We have at least 143 military bases in Europe. Why wouldn't we "take any military action."

Where do you get your info? This sounds like some RW talking point.
So what is your point? That the U.S. doesn't have to be militarily serious?

32-member NATO is all for one, one for all. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty requires member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack. That's what defense treaties are about.

NATO defends The West.

We have all kinds of military units in Europe.

2nd Theater Signal Brigade.
Dept. of the Army CID - Europe Field Office.
66th Military Intelligence Brigade.
598th Transportation Brigade.
Installation Management Command – Europe.
Medical Readiness Command, Europe.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Europe District.
U.S. Army Flight Operations Detachment.

[HereForTheParty]

27. Even if a new law prevents Trump from leaving NATO

he still wouldn't be obligated to provide military assistance should a member be attacked. He should, and we're capable of it, but he wouldn't be obligated to do so under Article 5.

What are a NATO member’s collective defense obligations?
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them . . . shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained

[ancianita]

28. I see. Okay. The loophole. Man, the next four years are going to be moment-to-moment

and hard to keep up with. (And no wonder Trump's voters don't keep up with his donors.)

I still think Republican congressional pressure to support Ukraine would result in their continuing funding; besides, Elon's Starlink could recoup some of that money, not to mention that he's been paid for Starlink's use by Putin, too.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

13. However, SCOTUS says he can break any law he likes.

He'll claim it's all part of his official duties. Laws don't matter anymore.

[ancianita]

17. Google AI is getting pretty helpful these days.

[iluvtennis]

20. Some good news - thanks for posting. n/t

[John2028]

21. Good point

Good point

[Martin68]

22. Thinking ahead. Taking precautions. Very smart.

[krkaufman]

26. Funny

that tells me the majority of the GOP wouldn't vote to withdraw from NATO.

[crimycarny]

31. Only because it's in their own best interests

GOP has no spine, no morals, nothing but a quest for power power power and $$$$. That is the only thing that gives me hope GOP wouldn’t vote in significant enough numbers to get 2/3 majority. Leaving NATO would leave US vulnerable and put the GOP at risk (along with all of us).

Whenever the GOP has done the “right thing” it’s always been because it’s in their best interests.

Now when it’s comes to ACA, that’s gone. Honestly I think Trump hates the ACA because it’s very successful legislation that is popularly referred to as “Obamacare” and he seethes about that. If Congress put in a measure to keep ACA but rename it “Trumpcare” I swear he’d support it. Such a insecure narcissistic empty bag of ego. No soul.

[Figarosmom]

29. Good

Now if they can stop him from pulling aid to Ukraine