with lawmakers expressing concern about potential US military interventions overseas. It remains uncertain whether enough Republicans will join Democrats to block a takeover of the Danish-controlled island, or whether Trump will bow to congressional pressure or act unilaterally as he has in other areas during his term. The Greenland debate has spotlighted broader questions about the Trump administration’s inclination to use unilateral military action, diplomacy, and economic pressure to project power, including in Venezuela and Iran.

While many Republicans historically supported Trump’s foreign policy, a growing number have signaled concerns that annexing Greenland would breach US and international law and could strain NATO. Some Republican leaders have said there is little interest in purchasing or seizing Greenland. Trump had left the military option on the table, but he ruled it out in Davos. Several Republicans have joined Democrats in opposing tariffs tied to the Greenland bid, arguing they would harm the US, its businesses, and allies, and would benefit adversaries seeking to divide NATO.

Criticism centers on the potential to undermine NATO unity and Greenland’s sovereignty, with senators like Lisa Murkowski stressing that Greenland’s sovereignty is non-negotiable. Trump argues that owning Greenland is essential to competing with China and Russia in the Arctic, and he has indicated he will pursue the goal “one way or another,” even as dissent grows in Congress. He downplayed NATO concerns, insisting ownership is critical to security, but his stance has become increasingly unpopular on Capitol Hill.

There are several legislative avenues to check him: Congress could withhold funding or reject any action requiring funding to acquire Greenland; the Senate and House could oppose a treaty with Denmark, given that ratification would require a two-thirds Senate vote. Some Republicans have suggested breaking with Trump on Greenland. There is debate over whether a purely executive agreement could bypass Congress, though experts are skeptical that a deal of this magnitude could be concluded without legislative involvement.

As the situation evolves, lawmakers have shown willingness to pursue measures to prevent unilateral military action, signaling growing bipartisan dissatisfaction with expanding overseas engagements. Last week a bipartisan delegation visited Denmark to show support for Greenland, illustrating ongoing geopolitical sensitivities surrounding US policy in the Arctic. (BBC)