President Donald Trump would be banned from deploying troops to Greenland under a new proposed Congressional bill.
Newsweek contacted the White House via email to ask if the president believes the U.S. should wait for instructions from Denmark before deploying military personnel to Greenland.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly previously told Newsweek that “NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States, and Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
Why It Matters
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member, and hosts critical Arctic infrastructure linked to U.S. missile defense and strategic competition with Russia and China, making any U.S. attempt to change the island’s status a flashpoint for the alliance.
Congressional efforts to preempt the use of U.S. military force or funding to seize the island underscore a widening rift between Trump’s rhetoric and the sovereignty red lines set by Denmark and Greenlandic leaders.
What To Know
A new Democratic proposal in Congress aims to bar Trump from unilaterally sending U.S. troops to Greenland, escalating a legislative pushback against the administration’s increasingly aggressive Arctic ambitions.
The measure—H.R. 7192, introduced on Wednesday by California Representative Brad Sherman—would explicitly prohibit the United States from deploying or assigning troops to Greenland unless invited by the Kingdom of Denmark.
It represents one of the most direct legislative attempts yet to restrain the White House’s Greenland campaign. According to Congress.gov, the bill has been referred to both the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.
It arrives amid weeks of rising transatlantic tensions sparked by Trump’s renewed efforts to assert control over the vast Arctic island, a self‑governing territory of Denmark that the administration has repeatedly framed as essential to U.S. national security against Russia and China.
It also follows weeks of debate over a White House “framework” that Trump said would emerge “in about two weeks,” and comes as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers warned that any attempt to take control of Greenland would violate NATO principles and strain U.S. alliances.
The president has often referred to the timeline of two weeks when asked for updates on major dealmaking initiatives.
In the past week, Trump has openly floated expanding U.S. military access on the island, threatened European allies with tariffs, and suggested the U.S. may “do whatever we want” in Greenland under an eventual framework agreement.
But a majority of American voters, including those in the president’s own camp, are against taking the frozen island territory by force, according to national polling data from YouGov and The Economist.
In the poll, 72 percent said they opposed such an action, compared with just 9 percent who supported it. Even among Trump’s 2024 voters, most—54 percent—said they were against using force, while 22 percent backed the idea.
Respondents were somewhat more receptive to the notion of purchasing Greenland, though the public still leaned negative overall. Some 51 percent opposed buying the island, while 29 percent supported a purchase.
Support was highest among Trump voters, 61 percent of whom said they would favor acquiring Greenland through a sale. The survey polled 1,722 U.S. adults between January 16 and 19, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
These figures mirror a broader wave of Democratic resistance. Earlier this month, a House Democrat introduced legislation to block Trump from purchasing, annexing, or invading Greenland, placing it in direct competition with a separate GOP bill that would authorize the president to “take such steps as may be necessary” to acquire the island.
Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez of California introduced the Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act, a short three‑page measure that would bar the use of federal funds to advance Trump’s plans for Greenland.
And in the upper chamber, a bipartisan pair of senators—Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—has already introduced the NATO Unity Protection Act, which would bar the Pentagon or State Department from using funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over the territory of a NATO member state, directly targeting any move to seize Greenland.
Trump, returning from the World Economic Forum in Davos, described a prospective arrangement for “total access” in Greenland as a “forever” deal, without providing specifics or confirming Denmark’s agreement.
Danish and Greenlandic officials reiterated that sovereignty is not negotiable, even as they signaled willingness to discuss Arctic security cooperation within existing legal frameworks.
Regarding Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, White House spokeswoman Kelly said: “If this deal goes through, and President Trump is very hopeful it will, the United States will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever.”
What People Are Saying
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday: “There was a, really a negotiation, but it’s infinity. The time limit is infinity, meaning there is no time limit. It’s forever. It’s, you know you hear about 99 years and 50 years, it’s forever, that was discussed. We can do anything we want. We can do military. We can do anything we want, and it’s being negotiated and let’s see what happens. I think it’ll be good.”
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek on Wednesday in a statement: “President Trump was not elected to preserve the status quo–he is a visionary leader who is always generating creative ideas to bolster US national security. Many of this President’s predecessors recognized the strategic logic of acquiring Greenland, but only President Trump has had the courage to pursue this seriously. As the President said, NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States, and Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
Representative Murkowski said: “The mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling and must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute.”
Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, a Danish lawmaker representing Greenland, said: “What we are witnessing these days from Trump is insane.”
What Happens Next
House leaders will decide whether to refer H.R. 7192 to committee and schedule hearings or markups, steps that would determine whether the measure advances to the floor.
In parallel, Senate sponsors of the NATO Unity Protection Act are seeking support to attach the measure to appropriations or authorization vehicles governing the Pentagon and State Department.
Trump said he would deliver an update on his Greenland “framework” in early February, but Danish and Greenlandic leaders have stated that any arrangement must respect their sovereignty, and no confirmation of an agreed framework has been announced.