A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has introduced new legislation aimed at preventing any U.S. president from launching military action against a NATO member or its territory, amid rising concern over statements by President Donald Trump suggesting the possible use of force to acquire Greenland.
The proposed bill, led by Representative Bill Keating of Massachusetts, brings together Democrats and Republicans in a rare show of unity over the importance of safeguarding NATO’s collective security framework. Keating is joined by Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a retiring Republican centrist, along with senior Democrats Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania.
“This is about our fundamental shared goals and our fundamental security—not just in Europe, but in the United States itself,” Keating said while outlining the intent of the legislation.
While the bill does not name Greenland explicitly, lawmakers have acknowledged that it is designed to address recent rhetoric surrounding the Danish territory, which is part of the NATO alliance. Greenland’s strategic Arctic location has drawn heightened attention in recent years, but any military action against it would constitute an attack on a NATO member, potentially triggering Article 5, the alliance’s cornerstone clause that treats an attack on one as an attack on all.
Targeting Funding to Rein in Executive Power
Unlike traditional war powers resolutions, which have often struggled to limit presidential military authority, the new legislation focuses on restricting federal funding for any unauthorized military operation against a NATO ally.
“War powers are important, but we’ve seen with Democratic and Republican presidents that they’re not always effective,” Keating explained. “It’s hard to get around having no funds or not allowing personnel to do it.”
By denying funding, the bill seeks to assert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending and national security decisions, effectively placing a financial barrier in the way of unilateral military action.
Lawmakers involved in drafting the legislation said this approach offers a more practical and enforceable safeguard against executive overreach, particularly in situations that could destabilize long-standing international alliances.
Greenland Concerns and NATO Unity
President Trump and senior administration officials have openly discussed Greenland’s strategic value to U.S. security, with some statements stopping short of ruling out military force. These remarks have alarmed lawmakers across party lines, as well as U.S. allies, who fear such actions could fracture the 76-year-old NATO alliance.
Keating said the decision not to name Greenland in the bill was deliberate.
“This isn’t just about Greenland,” he said. “This is about our security.”
He confirmed that he met with Denmark’s ambassador and Greenland’s representatives as the legislation was being finalized, underscoring the diplomatic sensitivities involved.
Democrats have uniformly opposed the idea of military action against a NATO ally, while several senior Republicans have also expressed skepticism, warning that such a move would undermine U.S. credibility and weaken transatlantic cooperation.
Broader Congressional Context
The legislation comes at a moment when congressional Democrats are increasingly seeking ways to constrain potential military action by the Trump administration beyond Europe. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are also debating measures related to possible U.S. intervention in Venezuela, following the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro.
A separate war powers measure addressing Venezuela could advance in the Senate, though its prospects in the House remain uncertain. Against this backdrop, the NATO-focused bill reflects growing concern in Congress about the need to clearly define limits on the use of force.
Supporters of the legislation argue that defending NATO allies is not only a matter of diplomacy but also of national interest.
“NATO has been the backbone of global security for generations,” one senior Democratic aide said. “Any action that puts that alliance at risk also puts American security at risk.”
An Uncertain Path Forward
While the bill has bipartisan backing, its future remains uncertain in a politically divided Congress. Lawmakers backing the measure said they are actively seeking additional Republican support and hope the legislation will move forward as a statement of congressional resolve.
Even if the bill does not advance quickly, its introduction sends a strong signal to both the White House and U.S. allies that Congress is prepared to act to protect alliance commitments and prevent destabilizing military decisions.
As tensions rise globally and NATO faces renewed strategic challenges, the debate highlights a fundamental question for U.S. foreign policy: how to balance executive authority with congressional oversight while preserving the alliances that have underpinned international security for decades.
