well does it say anything about a president cutting funding for the treaty. that's the real kicker

"Ok. Ok, ok, ok, ok ok."🐸

I don't find anything done by the current regime legitimate, so ...

I'd never want one person to have the power to enter us into a treaty, nor did the Constitution which requires Advice and Consent of the Senate, so I'd similarly be reluctant to allow one person to be able to dissolve one either, even though the Constitutions doesn't have anything to say on that matter.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office. The alliance has taken on revitalized importance under Biden, especially since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.'

So in other words, this is reactive legislation, passed by RINOs who are scared of Trump.

Also, the author, Kelly, is repeating the lie that Russia is the aggressor, so I sensed an agenda.

Just to be clear: The Russians moved in, to end a civil war that was raging and arguably started in Nov 2013. This then developed into a murderous war on their own country-men in the Donbass (2014), after a rigged, false election in which the Donbass citizens were not allowed to vote because terrorisms, and little green men in Crimea. Russia went in to stop the killing of Russian-speakers.

But instead of helping, which UN could legitimately have done, the West decided to go full Churchill and claim an invasion. "We (NATO) must now fight the Russians", etc. etc.

Also this statement confirms my first reaction:

Trump’s critics say the former president’s rhetoric weakens the unity and force of purpose of the alliance. And they expressed concerns that Trump would abandon the U.S. commitment to the mutual defense pact of the alliance or withdraw the U.S. completely.

They are scared of Trump.