I would almost think the legislation was not needed, as being part of NATO is a treaty arrangement the U.S. signed, and the Senate approved, and I did not think that Presidents can unilaterly defy a treaty arrangement the U.S. is part of.
It seems to me the legislation was stating what was already legally obvious.
It’s about clawing authority they don’t have, not in the subject itself.
They forget coequal branches of government and that none have authority over the rest.
Hard to say what’s needed anymore. Obama signed on (illegally w/o Senate Approval) to the Paris Climate Accords, IIRC.
Regardless, I’d say the way to diminish NATO is to just not include any funding or operational orders supporting it. NATO has become a lumbering behemoth going far beyond its original charter. If Europe and some here in the US want NATO-like involvement in the mideast, then create a new treaty and get it passed through the Senate and stop piggy-backing off cold war NATO.
Dem Presidents have ignored treaties. Clinton for one when it came to Taiwan.
It's been over twenty years since the treaty was signed and as stipulated in the treaty, "...any party may cease to be a party one year after its notice of denunciation..."
Add to that Article II of our Constitution which grants power of foreign policy to the president.
I believe Trump would have the power to drop the treaty.
Yup.