⚡ JUST HOURS AGO: TRUMP STUNNED AS GOP TURNS ON HIM OVER GREENLAND — a sudden CHECKMATE move, allies breaking ranks, and a quiet revolt that insiders say hit harder than anyone expected 🚨

A growing number of Republicans are publicly distancing themselves from President Donald Trump following renewed statements suggesting the United States could seek control of Greenland — even, in some interpretations, by force. The backlash, coming from senior lawmakers, former allies and Republican voters themselves, has underscored the limits of support for a proposal that has alarmed U.S. allies and unsettled members of Mr. Trump’s own party.

The most pointed criticism came from Senator Tom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, who sharply rebuked recent remarks by senior White House adviser Stephen Miller. Mr. Miller had suggested in a television interview that Greenland “should be part of the United States,” declining to rule out military force when pressed.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Tillis called the idea “absurd” and warned that such statements risked damaging U.S. credibility abroad. He emphasized that Congress, as a coequal branch of government, has authority over matters of war and territorial acquisition. Any effort to annex or acquire foreign territory, he said, would require congressional approval, not offhand remarks by executive branch officials.

“You don’t speak for the Congress,” Mr. Tillis said, adding that careless rhetoric undermines serious foreign policy objectives and distracts from legitimate national security concerns in the Arctic.

The senator’s comments reflected a broader unease among Republicans that the administration’s language has outpaced its legal and political footing. While some party leaders have praised Mr. Trump’s assertive approach to global affairs, Greenland appears to be a bridge too far — particularly when framed as a matter of entitlement rather than diplomacy.

Public opinion within the Republican electorate suggests similar reservations. According to a recent survey by YouGov, only 15 percent of Republicans said they would support the United States using military force to take control of Greenland, while 60 percent opposed the idea outright. The remainder said they were unsure.

For a president who has often relied on strong backing from his base, the numbers are striking. They suggest that even among Republican voters, the prospect of military action against a friendly nation and NATO ally carries significant political risk.

That concern was echoed by Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s former vice president, who broke his silence on the issue during a recent interview. Mr. Pence rejected any suggestion of military action against Greenland, calling Denmark a valued ally and warning that such a move would have grave consequences for the transatlantic alliance.

“A military assault against a NATO ally would trigger alliance obligations,” Mr. Pence said, referring to the collective defense principles that underpin NATO. He noted that such an action would force allied nations to choose between defending a fellow member or abandoning the alliance altogether.

While Mr. Pence left open the theoretical possibility of a negotiated, voluntary arrangement — likening it to historical land purchases such as Alaska — he stressed that force was categorically off the table. “Denmark is a NATO ally,” he said. “That matters.”

European leaders have already responded forcefully to the administration’s rhetoric, issuing joint statements reaffirming that Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is not subject to external claims. They have emphasized that Arctic security must be pursued collectively and in accordance with international law.

Within Republican circles, the Greenland episode has reopened a deeper debate about the party’s direction under Mr. Trump. Some lawmakers and former officials see the controversy as an example of what they describe as a populist impulse that prizes confrontation over institutional restraint.

Mr. Pence framed the issue in those terms, contrasting a traditional conservative emphasis on alliances, constitutional limits and American leadership with what he called the “siren song of populism.” He acknowledged that Mr. Trump has achieved policy successes but argued that some recent moves reflect a departure from long-standing Republican principles.

For now, the White House has not formally outlined any policy steps regarding Greenland, and officials have stopped short of describing concrete plans. Still, the reaction from Republicans suggests that rhetorical escalation alone has consequences — not only abroad, but within the president’s own coalition.

As the debate continues, Greenland has become less a question of Arctic strategy than a test of political boundaries: how far a president can go in redefining U.S. ambitions before resistance emerges not from the opposition, but from within his own party.