2023 American Political Scene

[TopHatter]

Lawmakers stuffed a provision into the Pentagon funding bill that makes it all but impossible for Trump to leave NATO


Then-President Donald Trump prepares to address reporters at the 2018 NATO summit

• Congress has passed a sweeping law that could spell trouble for Trump if he wins in 2024.
• Lawmakers included a provision in the $886 billion Pentagon funding bill that makes it all but impossible to leave NATO.
• Trump has not said he would withdraw the US from NATO, but there are fears he could do so.

A brief provision in the massive $886 billion bill funding the Pentagon will likely kill former President Donald Trump or any potential future president's ambitions to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Sens. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, and Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, teamed up to muscle their bill — which would require an act of Congress or Senate approval to leave NATO — into what is often deemed a must-pass bill that funds servicemembers and outlines national security priorities. President Joe Biden is expected to sign the legislation into law. The Senate passed the overall legislation 87 to 13. The House passed it on Friday on a 310-118 vote.

"The Senate's vote today to pass my bipartisan bill to prevent any U.S. President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO reaffirms U.S. support for this crucial alliance that is foundational for our national security," Kaine said in a statement after the Pentagon funding bill passed the Senate. "It also sends a strong message to authoritarians around the world that the free world remains united."

Kaine and Rubio failed to pass their bill when Trump was in the White House.

Trump is not mentioned directly in the provision. He has also not explicitly promised to withdraw from what was originally a Cold War-era alliance. Nonetheless, there are persistent fears that if Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, he will withdraw the US from NATO. As The New York Times pointed out recently, Trump's campaign website does include this vague sentence, "We have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally re-evaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission."

A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the provision.

The former president has been harshly critical of NATO for decades. In a 2000 book, Trump wrote that pulling back from the alliance "would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use."

As president, he harangued NATO members for not spending enough on their defense, pushing to double the 2% of GDP spending target to a point that not even the US had met.

Trump also unnerved some NATO members by questioning the collective defense provision that is at the core of the alliance. Article 5 has only been invoked once in NATO's 74-year history: after the September 11th attacks. In an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump questioned why the US would want to defend Montenegro, which joined NATO in 2019.

"I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question," Trump told Carlson, who had asked about the collective defense requirement. "Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They have very aggressive people. They may get aggressive and congratulations, you're in World War III, now I understand that. But that's the way it was set up."

It's not entirely clear if Trump or any president could unilaterally pull the nation out of NATO even if the provision didn't pass. The US Constitution requires presidents to seek Senate approval for treaties, but there are disagreements on whether Senate approval is needed to end a treaty. As the Times pointed out, courts have previously tried to avoid settling such disputes.

Under the provision, a president would be required to notify key committees in both the House and Senate no later than 180 days before deliberating whether to "suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw" from NATO. If a president pressed forward, a withdrawal would require an act of Congress or 2/3rds of the senators present to approve of such an action.

Unless there is a dramatic change in US politics, it's hard to see any leader ever crossing that bar.
___________

[Albany Rifles]

Not surprised Tim Kaine did the right thing but it looks like Little Marco Rubio finally found a spine!

Good!

[tbm3fan]

Not surprised Tim Kaine did the right thing but it looks like Little Marco Rubio finally found a spine!

Good!

To think we would even need that but then when you might have to deal with a clown with a simpleton mind you never know.

"Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They have very aggressive people."

Brilliance on display I think not.

[TopHatter]

To think we would even need that but then when you might have to deal with a clown with a simpleton mind you never know.

"Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They have very aggressive people."

Brilliance on display I think not.

I wonder who told him that Montenegro is a country.

[JRT]

18 December 2023
The Bird’s Eye View of a Changing World with Amb. John Sullivan (Part 1: Russia and the Middle East)
(38 min, 24 sec)

Hudson Senior Fellow Mario Mancuso sits down with Ambassador John Sullivan, who served as United States ambassador to Russia immediately before, during, and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

One of America’s most distinguished public servants, Ambassador Sullivan has served under five US presidents, in leadership roles at four cabinet departments, and as deputy secretary of the Departments of State and Commerce. Amid the ongoing debate about additional US funding for Ukraine, Ambassador Sullivan gives a bird’s eye view of some of the most consequential geopolitical events in recent times, including the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the regime dynamics in the Kremlin and what they mean for Vladimir Putin’s future, Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel, and Iran’s proxy war in a changing Middle East.

The conversation will continue in a second part coming soon.

...

[TopHatter]

Supreme Court showdown with Trump

The Supreme Court is stuck with Donald Trump, whether the justices like it or not.

The big picture: The court may not have any real way to avoid a starring role in the 2024 campaign, or to shield itself from the constant firestorm that swirls around Trump.

• Almost no one in politics has managed to escape that maelstrom undamaged, and that's bad news for the court at a time when its seams are more visible than they've been in decades — already under fire from the left, divided internally on the right and losing its luster with the public.
• "There's no winning," Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told Axios.

Driving the news: Legal experts from all over the ideological spectrum expect that the court will soon agree to hear the dispute over whether Trump can be on the ballot when Colorado holds its GOP primary.

• The justices have already agreed to hear a separate case challenging some of the charges against Jan. 6 rioters, which has indirect implications for Trump's Jan. 6 prosecution.
• And special counsel Jack Smith has asked them to rule quickly on Trump's claims that he's immune from prosecution because he was president.

Between the lines: Under normal circumstances, or in earlier times, the court would likely look for an escape hatch from these cases — a way to resolve whatever absolutely needs to be resolved while setting as little precedent as possible.

• That's roughly how the justices handled cases over Trump's tax records, and most of the justices were not eager to delve into the Hail Mary lawsuits he filed challenging elements of the 2020 election.

But there simply may not be any good escape hatches here.

• They'll almost certainly have to say that Trump is or isn't allowed on Colorado's ballot — a very easy-to-understand win or loss for Trump.
• There are only so many ways to do that without getting into the biggest questions the case raises — whether the Constitution does, in fact, ban people who participated in an insurrection from holding public office; whether that applies to the president; and whether Trump's role in Jan. 6 fits the bill.

In Smith's cases, the court is being asked to set important precedents on an accelerated timeline.

• Agreeing to move quickly means the court's work will be under the microscope in the heat of campaign season, when the court is already battling public perception that it's simply a political exercise.
• But moving slowly would be a de facto win for Trump. His goal is to delay this prosecution until after the election, hope he wins, and then get the Justice Department to simply drop the case.
• "Delay is an action," Muller said.

What we're watching: Trump will of course mount a martyrdom campaign around any ruling, even procedural ones, that don't go his way. He's never hesitated to attack judges, or people he appointed, before.

• Democrats, meanwhile, are already furious with the court, both for overturning Roe v. Wade and over ethics questions surrounding Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
• Thomas has already faced calls to recuse himself from cases related to Jan. 6, due to his wife's involvement in the Trump team's efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. So far he has given no indication that he will sit out either of the cases related to Smith's prosecution.

And tensions appear to be high internally, as well.

• The New York Times' behind-the-scenes reporting on the end of Roe v. Wade reinforced that Chief Justice John Roberts is only sometimes able to steer the court's conservative majority toward his preferred style of incrementalism and reputational caution.

The bottom line: "There's a sense in which the cases are bigger than Trump," Muller said.

• Whatever the court decides on presidential immunity will be a critically important precedent, just like similar cases involving Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
• And yet, these cases can't — and won't — be decided outside the extremely Trump-specific context of the coming election year.

"In the past, any one of these cases probably would have been fatal to a candidate," Muller said.

_____________