President Donald Trump’s repeated musings about taking over Greenland have sparked an unusual wave of resistance within his own party, as Republican lawmakers attempt to rein in what they describe as an extraordinary foreign policy obsession that could strain U.S. alliances.
Over the past several weeks, Trump has publicly floated the idea of bringing the vast Arctic island under U.S. control, despite objections from Denmark, Greenland’s elected officials, and key global partners. While his proposals have largely been dismissed internationally as unrealistic, some members of Congress are now engaging in a delicate balancing act: pushing back against the president while reassuring allies behind closed doors that the United States remains committed to diplomatic norms and NATO obligations.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) suggested that any attempt by the president to launch a military operation on Greenland would provoke a bipartisan reaction, including the potential invocation of the War Powers Resolution to restrain executive action.
“If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Tillis told reporters.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) went even further in his criticism, calling the notion “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard” and warning that it could trigger impeachment proceedings. The blunt public statements underscore the gravity with which some lawmakers view Trump’s Greenland ambitions, which they describe as both impractical and diplomatically perilous.
A bipartisan congressional delegation is slated to travel to Copenhagen on Friday to deliver a clear message to Danish leaders: the U.S. government has no intention of launching military action against Greenland without broad congressional support. While Senate Majority Leader John Thune is not part of the delegation, he publicly endorsed its goals, cautioning that there is “certainly not an appetite here for some of the options that have been talked about or considered,” an apparent reference to Trump’s repeated military musings.
The pushback represents one of the most significant rifts between the president and his party’s congressional leadership during Trump’s second term. Although GOP unease has surfaced before, it has rarely translated into decisive action to limit the president’s foreign policy maneuvers. Earlier this month, for example, a bipartisan group of senators successfully moved to restrain Trump from further military operations in Venezuela, but that effort faltered when the administration made concessions and some Republican senators reversed course.
Greenland, however, presents a different calculus for lawmakers. The island is a sovereign territory of Denmark, a NATO ally, raising the stakes for U.S. military or annexation actions. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a co-author of the Venezuela war powers measure, acknowledged the difficulty of securing a veto-proof majority but suggested that Greenland could be a scenario where bipartisan support is more feasible.
“On Greenland, we might have a different outcome,” Kaine said, noting the unique strategic and diplomatic sensitivities involved.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thune’s predecessor, also weighed in from the Senate floor, warning that any unilateral military move on Greenland would be “an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm” with the potential to “incinerate” NATO alliances. Likewise, Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) expressed deep concern about the administration’s messaging on Greenland, calling the rhetoric “unproductive” and inconsistent with the treatment of allies.
Despite growing unease, Republican leaders face significant limitations in constraining the president preemptively. Tillis, who has emerged as a vocal critic of Trump’s top aides, stressed that while he sees Greenland takeover talk as an exaggeration influenced by hardline advisers, he does not believe it warrants immediate legislative action.
“It’s not the position of the U.S. government,” Tillis said, attributing Trump’s statements to figures such as deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. He added that this was partly the reason he would join the Copenhagen delegation, seeking to clarify U.S. intent and assuage allied concerns.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who initially supported the Venezuela war powers measure before backing away, echoed Tillis’s caution on Greenland. “Not prospectively,” Hawley said, emphasizing that any congressional intervention should respond to concrete developments rather than speculative scenarios.
Some Republican lawmakers are taking a more proactive approach. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), co-founder of the Senate Arctic Caucus, introduced a nonbinding resolution alongside Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Bacon, which underscores “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” and affirms that any military action would require congressional authorization.
Murkowski, who met with Danish diplomats this week and will travel to Copenhagen herself, said she would back a Greenland war powers resolution if circumstances warranted. She also co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that would prevent the administration from unilaterally using funds to blockade, occupy, annex, or assert control over Greenland—or any other NATO territory.
“We are operating in times where we’re having conversations about things we never thought even possible,” Murkowski said. “To use the name Greenland in the context of a war powers resolution is absolutely stunning.”
While war powers resolutions can be fast-tracked, passage is by no means guaranteed. Some Senate Republicans are skeptical that leadership would allow such measures to advance. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) quipped that Thune would oppose any Greenland resolution “like a bad rash,” signaling potential intra-party resistance.
Democrats, meanwhile, are preparing a broader legislative push to reinforce congressional oversight of military action. They plan to introduce multiple war powers resolutions in the coming weeks, including one specifically addressing Greenland. Tillis, despite acknowledging broad potential support for intervention in the event of imminent action, said he is not currently backing any such measure because doing so would “legitimize” a threat he views as speculative.
The Greenland debate highlights a broader tension in Trump’s second term between unconventional presidential impulses and traditional GOP foreign policy norms. While previous conflicts over U.S. military actions in countries like Venezuela saw some bipartisan cooperation to limit presidential authority, the Greenland scenario tests lawmakers’ willingness to preemptively constrain a president who has shown a preference for unilateral decision-making.
Observers note that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is consistent with his broader transactional approach to foreign policy, viewing strategic territories as assets for economic or military leverage. Yet in this case, lawmakers across the aisle and from both parties’ foreign policy establishments are emphasizing that any attempt to seize territory from a NATO ally would carry profound diplomatic and legal consequences.
“It’s not just a question of geography; it’s a question of credibility,” said an unnamed congressional aide familiar with the bipartisan delegation. “If the United States is seen threatening the sovereignty of a partner, it undermines everything we’re trying to do with NATO and in the Arctic.”
The stakes are particularly high in the Arctic, a region of growing strategic interest for the United States, Russia, and China. Greenland’s geographic location and natural resources make it a focal point of military and economic calculations, and any unilateral move by the U.S. could trigger significant international backlash.
For now, Congress appears to be using a combination of public statements, private diplomacy, and legislative signaling to influence the president’s thinking. Whether that will be sufficient to dissuade Trump from pursuing more aggressive rhetoric—or even concrete plans—remains uncertain. But the unusually candid critiques from Republican lawmakers suggest that Trump’s Greenland obsession has crossed a line that even some of his closest allies are unwilling to ignore.
“The world is watching,” Murkowski said. “And Congress has a responsibility to make sure we don’t undermine our alliances or act in ways that put Americans and our partners at risk. Greenland is too important to treat as a whim.”
As the Copenhagen delegation prepares to meet Danish officials and discuss the matter in person, the White House has remained largely tight-lipped. Trump himself has continued to allude to Greenland in interviews and social media posts, framing the island as a strategic prize. Yet the growing chorus of Republican warnings—and the looming possibility of bipartisan congressional action—signals that the president may face significant pushback if he attempts to translate rhetoric into action.
For lawmakers like Tillis, Bacon, and Murkowski, the Greenland debate represents both a rare moment of interparty cooperation and a test of Congress’s ability to check presidential overreach in foreign affairs. As discussions continue, one thing is clear: Greenland is no longer just an Arctic territory—it has become a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over executive power, alliance commitments, and the limits of presidential ambition.
