WASHINGTON — A growing number of Republican lawmakers are publicly distancing themselves from renewed rhetoric associated with Donald Trump that frames Greenland as a strategic prize to be claimed by the United States, even by force if necessary. Their objections mark a rare and increasingly vocal intra-party backlash against language that critics say echoes 19th-century imperialism and risks undermining core American alliances.

The controversy intensified after comments by Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser, who declined in a televised interview to rule out military action against Greenland. Miller argued that American control over the Arctic territory was justified by strategic necessity and questioned Denmark’s authority over the island, which has been part of the Danish kingdom for centuries while maintaining broad internal autonomy.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been recognized as strategically significant because of its location in the Arctic and its role in North Atlantic defense. It is also deeply embedded in the security architecture of NATO, of which Denmark is a founding member. Any suggestion that the United States might seize the territory by force immediately raised alarms among lawmakers concerned about alliance obligations and global stability.

Senator Lisa Murkowski was among the first Republicans to voice opposition. She warned that any attempt to claim Greenland through coercion would “degrade both our national security and our international relationships,” framing the issue not as a partisan dispute but as a fundamental question of American credibility abroad.

In the House, Representative Blake Moore called talk of annexation “needlessly dangerous,” emphasizing that Denmark is “one of America’s closest partners.” An attack on Greenland, he said, would amount to an attack on NATO itself — a scenario that could fracture the alliance at a moment of heightened global tension.

Other Republicans were even more blunt. Representative Don Bacon, a former Air Force general with extensive NATO experience, publicly criticized Miller’s remarks, calling them “dumb” and stressing that respect must be shown to allies. “Greenland and Denmark are friends of the United States,” Bacon said, adding that loose talk about force undermines decades of diplomatic and military cooperation.

Speaker Mike Johnson struck a more cautious tone but nevertheless distanced himself from the idea of intervention. Asked whether U.S. action against Greenland would be appropriate, Johnson replied simply, “No,” while acknowledging the territory’s strategic importance without endorsing any specific course of action.

Representative Mike Lawler echoed that position in a televised interview, saying there was “no support” within the party for using military force. Lawler left open the possibility of negotiations with Greenland and Denmark on security or economic cooperation but emphasized that force would be unacceptable.

Taken together, the statements represent a notable moment of resistance within the Republican Party to rhetoric long associated with Trump’s “America First” worldview. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring Greenland, even proposing to purchase it outright — an idea that was swiftly rejected by Danish officials and Greenlandic leaders alike.

What distinguishes the current episode is the explicit linkage between that earlier proposal and more aggressive language about military power. Political analysts note that the pushback reflects both genuine concern about alliance politics and political self-preservation ahead of pivotal elections. With NATO once again central to U.S. strategy amid tensions with Russia and China, few Republicans appear eager to defend language that could be interpreted as threatening a key ally.

The episode has also refocused attention on Stephen Miller’s outsized influence within Trump’s policy orbit. Though formally associated with domestic issues, Miller has increasingly emerged as a public advocate for hard-line positions that blur the line between immigration enforcement, national security and foreign intervention. Critics argue that this concentration of influence, combined with Trump’s confrontational instincts, creates a volatile mix.

For now, the backlash has drawn a clear line. While Republicans remain divided on many aspects of foreign policy, there is broad agreement that talk of seizing Greenland by force crosses a boundary. Whether that consensus holds in a future Trump-led administration remains uncertain. What is clear is that, on Greenland at least, a significant portion of the party is signaling that it is unwilling to follow its most prominent figure down a path that risks turning allies into adversaries.