There is a difference between "the President and the Congress shall determine the appropriate action in response to any such danger." (as per the TRA) versus "yes, that is the commitment we made" to the question that will the US get militarily involved.
The issue was his choice of the word "commitment", in the context of the reporter's question. It was an explicit declaration, which is the type of language typically associated with a MDT (mutual defense treaty). The TRA does not make the commitment, but left it open ended.
Diplomats are careful about such commitments because it binds / creates the expectation that the US will response on their behalf to any provocation. I suppose Biden is "plain speaking" to be charitable, but it is a poor choice of words, especially when the reporter was clearly fishing for this type of response.
The issue was his choice of the word "commitment", in the context of the reporter's question. It was an explicit declaration, which is the type of language typically associated with a MDT (mutual defense treaty). The TRA does not make the commitment, but left it open ended.
Diplomats are careful about such commitments because it binds / creates the expectation that the US will response on their behalf to any provocation. I suppose Biden is "plain speaking" to be charitable, but it is a poor choice of words, especially when the reporter was clearly fishing for this type of response.