Could the courts force President Trump to comply with this 2023 statute, or would the case likely be dismissed based on lack of standing or the political question doctrine or that the statute is somehow unconstitutional?

So, Michael, the short answer is yes.

You know, any court here in the United States, if seized of the matter, could rule that that, for example, President Trump cannot withdraw unilaterally in light of the so-called National Defense Reauthorization Act that Sandy just mentioned, which was signed into law back in 2023, which requires congressional involvement when attempting to withdraw from NATO.

Now, this is actually a very tough constitutional law question, because under our constitutional structure, we're supposed to have three co-equal branches of government, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.

and are under Supreme Court precedent, our president's power is at its lowest ebb if the president is acting contrary to congressional wishes.

And so if our judiciary wanted to step in and say, look, for example, you, President Trump, or any other president, if you're attempting to withdraw from NATO in the face, in opposition of this congressional statute, which says, no, no, you cannot do so unilaterally.

Your power is at its lowest ebb, and hence your actions are unconstitutional.

How do you think a U.S. rejection of NATO, either a drawdown or a departure, would affect U.S. global credibility and leadership? Do you want to start us off, Milena?

Could the courts force President Trump to comply with this 2023 statute, or would the case likely be dismissed based on lack of standing or the political question doctrine or that the statute is somehow unconstitutional?

So, Michael, the short answer is yes.

You know, any court here in the United States, if, if seized of the matter, could rule that, for example, President Trump cannot withdraw unilaterally in light of the so-called National Defense Reauthorization Act that Sandy just mentioned, which was signed into law back in 2023, which requires congressional involvement when attempting to, to withdraw from NATO.

Now, this is actually a very tough constitutional law question because under our constitutional structure, we're supposed to have three co-equal branches of government, the executive, the judiciary, and the, the legislature, and are un- under Supreme Court precedent, our president's power is at its lowest ebb if the president is acting contrary to congressional wishes.

And so if our judiciary wanted to step in and say, "Look," for example, "you, President Trump, or any other president, if you're attempting to withdraw from NATO in the face, uh, in opposition of this, uh, congressional statute which says, 'No, no, you cannot do so unilaterally,' your power is at its lower- lowest ebb, and hence your actions are con- are, are unconstitutional." So in theory, a court could say this.

However, what we know in practice is that when it comes to these types of constitutional questions that have to do with executive power, our courts tend to be extremely deferential to the executive branch and tend to essentially say that these are political questions and that they're just not going to get involved, and we have precedent, uh, for that under the Carter administration.

There's a very famous case called Gol- Goldwater versus Carter where our courts said precisely that, "These are political questions.

How do you think a US rejection of NATO, either a drawdown or a departure, would affect US global credibility and leadership? Do you wanna start us off, Milena?

Milena, is that a valid concern?

Yes, Michael, I fear that it is.

As we have mentioned before, some of the Board of Peace members include President Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu, two individuals against whom arrest warrants are currently pending by the International Criminal Courts.

And there have been numerous other country dictators who have been invited to join or have joined from places such as Belarus, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Hungary, and many others who country leaders who are dictators, who are not known for their respect of human rights, who are not known for the respect of UN Charter, and who are definitely not known for their commitment to peace.

It seems to me that the criteria for joining the Board of Peace is that you have to be aligned with President Trump.

He dictates everything.

He runs the show.

Malena and Jess, do you want to add anything to that?

But how vulnerable do you think Iran is now?

Well, Iran certainly is vulnerable when it comes to actions by the United States.

And I think it's fair to acknowledge that any country in the world would be vulnerable when being potentially threatened by military force, by a superpower, like the United States.

But I think Iran is also vulnerable economically, and that's something that was recognized way back by the Obama administration when this nuclear agreement was negotiated, that Professor Cover also mentioned, because part of that agreement was the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran that had been in place by the United States since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

And so part of the deal was to say, look, we'll lift the sanctions, you Iran will have access to these frozen assets that have been frozen by US banks and other financial institutions.

And as a result, your economy will improve.

And there are lots of international relations, political science theories that stipulate that countries that are poor and economically oppressed, that peoples in those countries are much more likely to become radicalized, to engage in terrorism, that the regimes in those countries are likely to start making nefarious weapons and engaging in all sorts of rogue actions.

He asks, was Iran in violation of the nuclear proliferation treaty with stored enriched uranium? I