Republicans Break Ranks as Trump’s Greenland Threats Ignite a Bipartisan Defense of NATO

Washington — For decades, NATO has been treated in Washington as political bedrock: debated, criticized, occasionally strained, but ultimately untouchable. In 2026, that assumption is no longer safe.

President Trump’s repeated threats to use coercive leverage — including military force — to bring Greenland under American control have triggered an extraordinary backlash, not only from Democrats and U.S. allies, but from Republicans themselves. In Congress, lawmakers from both parties are now racing to erect legal and financial barriers to prevent what many describe as an unthinkable scenario: a U.S. military confrontation with NATO.

The shift marks one of the most significant fractures yet between Mr. Trump and his own party on foreign policy, and it underscores how far his second-term agenda has pushed America’s alliances toward crisis.

“This is not how you negotiate with allies,” said one Republican senator who has served in NATO-related roles and spoke publicly on cable news this week. “These are our friends. Threatening them is counterproductive, destabilizing, and frankly dangerous.”

A Threat That Would Not Fade

Mr. Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new. He floated the idea during his first term, drawing international ridicule. But in 2026, the rhetoric has escalated dramatically. According to multiple televised interviews and posts circulating widely on Truth Social, the president has described U.S. control of Greenland as “non-negotiable” and suggested that Denmark’s refusal to discuss sovereignty could carry consequences.

Those comments have landed with particular force because Greenland is not an unclaimed territory. It is a self-governing region under the Kingdom of Denmark — a NATO ally that has repeatedly affirmed Greenland’s right to self-determination.

Polls cited across CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and social media show just how isolated the president’s position has become. One widely shared survey found that only about 9 percent of Americans support the use of force to take Greenland, a figure that includes a small minority of Republicans.

European leaders have responded with visible alarm. Danish and Greenlandic officials have spoken publicly about the need to prepare for “all contingencies,” language that would have been unimaginable in U.S.-Danish relations just a few years ago.

Congress Moves to Draw a Red Line

In response, Congress has begun to act.

In the House, lawmakers introduced legislation with a strikingly blunt title: the Stop the Funding of the NATO Invasion Act. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans including Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, would prohibit the use of any federal funds for military operations in Greenland.

The strategy is deliberate. Rather than relying solely on congressional authorization for war — a safeguard many lawmakers fear could be ignored — the bill attacks the issue through funding, an area where Congress’s authority is explicit.

“If this passes, there is no ambiguity,” said one House aide familiar with the drafting. “No money, no invasion.”

The bill also declares that any military order to invade Greenland would be unlawful, placing responsibility squarely on officers to refuse compliance. That provision has taken on added significance amid ongoing Pentagon scrutiny of public statements by lawmakers reminding service members of their duty to reject illegal orders.

In the Senate, a parallel effort is underway, aimed more broadly at limiting unauthorized military actions abroad. While framed around Venezuela, senators have openly acknowledged that Greenland looms large in the background.

A Republican Rebellion — Quiet but Real

Perhaps the most striking element of the moment is who is speaking out.

Republican senators who have long supported robust defense spending and traditionally deferred to presidents of their own party are now issuing warnings on cable news, podcasts, and social platforms. Several have emphasized their personal ties to NATO, including years spent in alliance observer groups and oversight roles.

Denmark, they note, has “punched above its weight” for the alliance, losing 43 soldiers in Afghanistan — one of the highest per-capita casualty rates among NATO members — while honoring its Article 5 commitments after the September 11 attacks.

“The only thing worse than going to war with allies,” one former Armed Services Committee member said on MSNBC, “is going to war without them.”

Behind the scenes, Republican aides say there is widespread fear that even rhetorical threats could fracture NATO at a moment when Russia, China, and Iran are testing Western unity.

A Broader Worldview Comes Into Focus

Supporters of Mr. Trump argue that the controversy reflects a hard-nosed realism. Conservative media figures and podcasts have framed Greenland as a strategic necessity — a critical Arctic outpost for missile defense, radar coverage, and access to rare earth minerals essential for modern weapons and technology.

Senator Ted Cruz articulated that view recently, calling Greenland “ideally situated” to defend the United States in a future conflict with Russia or China. While acknowledging that Greenland “is not for sale,” he suggested that geopolitical realities can change.

But critics see something more troubling: a return to 19th-century “spheres of influence” thinking, in which great powers carve up regions by force or intimidation.

“That logic died in 1939,” one senator said in a floor speech now widely circulated on X. “After World War II, we learned that alliances — not empires — keep the peace.”

Echoes of Warnings Past

Adding to the sense of irony, clips from 2016 have resurfaced online showing Mr. Cruz himself warning that a President Trump might recklessly endanger allies. In one debate, he joked darkly that Americans might “wake up one morning” to find Denmark under threat.

The reversal has become emblematic, for many critics, of what they describe as a broader collapse of principle within the Republican Party — a willingness to abandon long-held positions to remain in the president’s good graces.

An Alliance at a Crossroads

For now, there is no indication that U.S. forces are preparing for action in Greenland. Military analysts stress that such an operation would be logistically complex and politically catastrophic.

But allies are listening closely — not just to what the president says, but to how the United States responds to him.

“NATO is the most successful alliance in the history of mankind,” one Republican lawmaker said in a televised interview. “Shaking it sends a signal to Putin that he’s winning.”

Whether Congress’s legislative firewall will hold remains uncertain. What is clear is that, in 2026, the idea of America threatening NATO is no longer unthinkable — and that reality alone marks a profound shift in the postwar order.

As one senior senator put it bluntly: “This would not just end a presidency. It would end the world we helped build.”