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

[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