Congress can stop Trump's plan for Greenland: what tools do US parliamentarians have
17.01.2026When the president's desire to "get Greenland" runs afoul of the Constitution.
The first clear signal has appeared in the United States: Donald Trump's desire to establish control over Greenland is not the state's only alternative course - Congress openly reminded him of the limits of his powers1 . Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who represents Alaska, stated that Parliament has the constitutional tools to block any unilateral actions by the president related to the "seizure" of the island, and emphasized: Greenland is an ally for the United States, not an asset on the balance sheet of a corporation.1 2 Against this background, it becomes obvious: Washington's attempt to reformat the status of Greenland in an accelerated manner will face not only diplomatic, but also domestic political resistance.
What Lisa Murkowski Exactly Said: A Signal to Copenhagen and Nuuk
Murkowski's comment came not in Washington, but in Copenhagen, following a visit by a bipartisan delegation from the US Congress, which met with representatives of Denmark and the Greenland authorities.1 2 Speaking to reporters, the senator emphasized: “The important message that the people of the Kingdom of Denmark need to hear” is that the United States has three branches of government, and the Capitol has its own tools to influence any territorial initiatives of the White House.1 .
She pointed directly to a key lever: control over budget appropriations. According to her, Congress has constitutionally enshrined powers that allow it to block unilateral actions of the president through funding, including any attempts to “seize” Greenland bypassing allies.1 3 Separately, Murkowski emphasized: Greenland should be perceived as a partner and ally, not as an "asset" in the US balance sheet.1 .
Democrats are also against: Senator Chris Coons' initiative
Along with Murkowski, Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who represents Delaware and is part of a close circle of influential Democrats in the Senate, arrived in Copenhagen.2 He said he would work on legislation that would directly limit the president's authority to act unilaterally on Greenland, forcing the White House to coordinate any steps with Congress.1 2 .
This is a potential bill that could:
- to subject any territorial agreements to a Senate ratification procedure;
- prohibit the use of budget funds to implement plans for Greenland without the separate consent of Congress;
- to enshrine in American law the principle of respect for the sovereignty of Denmark and the right of the inhabitants of Greenland to self-determination2 .
This means that if such an initiative is legally formalized, Trump's room for maneuver in the Greenland direction will be significantly narrowed.
What tools does Congress actually have against Trump's plans?
The US Constitution assigns a decisive role to Congress in matters of budget, foreign policy, and ratification of international agreements — and this already hints at the limits of presidential “freedom of action.”2 3 Even if Trump tries to push his line through executive orders, he needs money to implement any infrastructure, diplomatic missions, defense deals, or possible compensation — and it is Congress that allocates the money.
Among the main tools:
- restrictive “rider amendments” to the budget that prohibit the use of federal funds for certain purposes;
- requiring Senate ratification of any agreements related to the territorial status of Greenland or the expansion of the US military presence in circumvention of existing arrangements with Denmark;
- oversight hearings and investigations that could politically complicate the implementation of unilateral decisions by the White House2 3 .
The combination of budget constraints and legal barriers can effectively "stop" any course if there is no stable bicameral support.
What came before: a special envoy to Greenland and an ultimatum to Europe
Before Murkowski and Koons made their statements, Trump had already taken several high-profile steps that provoked a sharp reaction from Copenhagen and Nuuk. In particular, he appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the US special envoy to Greenland, a position that was seen in Denmark as an attempt to build a direct political channel to the island, bypassing the government in Copenhagen.1 .
The Danish authorities reminded Washington of the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of the kingdom and called on it to "refrain from steps that could be perceived as an infringement of sovereignty."1 Trump, in turn, said that the US “needs Greenland” for defense — given the island’s role in the Arctic security architecture, early warning systems, and potential missile defense.1 3 Additionally, he began blackmailing allies with tariffs, hinting that economic pressure would be the price for disagreeing with his policy on Greenland.1 .
How Europe met Trump's Greenland ambitions
European countries — primarily Denmark, as the formal sovereign over the island, and other EU and NATO members — have received Trump's Greenland initiative with understandable caution.1 3 For Copenhagen, this is not only a matter of prestige, but also of constitutional order: any change in Greenland's status should take place with the participation of the Danish parliament and the Greenlanders themselves, and not be the subject of backroom bargaining by major powers.
Brussels and the capitals of the Nordic countries, in turn, see Washington's attempts to "take possession" of Greenland without clear guarantees for Denmark as a dangerous precedent that could undermine the principle of the inviolability of borders in the broader European context.3 They also fear that an overly aggressive US course could provoke both Russian and Chinese responses in the Arctic — in the form of increased military presence, infrastructure, or economic penetration.
Arctic context: why Greenland is more than just a card on the table for Trump
Greenland has long been a key link in the US Arctic strategy: the island is home to the Thule base, which provides early warning of missile launches, monitors northern ice routes, and monitors Russian and Chinese activity in the region.3 For Trump, Greenland is not just a territorial trophy in the spirit of the 19th century, but an element of a larger vision, where the Arctic becomes a new “tart plot” of geopolitical rivalry.
That is why he is ready to escalate with Denmark and Europe, insisting that the US should gain greater control over the island — “for defense” and to deter Moscow and Beijing.3 The problem is that such a vision leaves almost no room for taking into account the interests of Greenland itself and turns it into an object of play between great powers, which contradicts both the norms of international law and the political reality in Nuuk.
Why Murkowski's speech is important right now
Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska, a state historically connected to the Arctic, experiencing climate change and well aware of the cost of excessive militarization of the region.2 Her voice in the Greenland debate carries more weight than a typical party line: the senator has experience working on energy and Arctic committees, as well as an image as a politician who is not afraid to go against her own party's line.
When she speaks of "three branches of government" as a signal to Denmark, it is actually an attempt to lower the level of panic and show: Trump is not all of America, and the US has mechanisms capable of containing his most radical initiatives.1 2 This is also important for European allies, who have been trying for months to understand how far Washington is willing to go in its Greenland plans.
What does all this mean for Ukraine?
At first glance, Greenland is a distant story. However, for Ukraine, this story has at least three dimensions. First, it shows how the American system of checks and balances is still capable of correcting even a very aggressive president’s course, if a critical mass in Congress wants it.2 3 This is important for Kyiv, which depends on decisions not only of the White House, but also of the US Parliament - regarding aid, sanctions, and security guarantees.
Secondly, the Arctic front of competition with Russia and China affects the distribution of resources, attention, and political will in Washington: the greater the crisis, the more difficult it is to balance between different theaters of confrontation, including Ukraine.3 Third, the way the US treats its allies (Denmark, Greenland) is a marker of how it will potentially respond to Ukraine's needs after the war, when it comes to bases, missile defense, or other forms of presence.
Will Congress really "stop" Trump?
Formally, Congress has enough leverage to block or seriously complicate the implementation of any Greenland strategy that does not have broad support.2 3 In practice, everything will depend on whether the Greenland issue turns into a major domestic political front or remains one of the many lines of tension between Trump and the legislature.
If Democrats and some Republicans, including Murkowski, can form a stable coalition to defend Denmark's sovereignty and the rights of Greenlanders, then even the most vocal statements from the White House risk remaining just that.2 If internal conflicts and other priorities (from the budget to immigration) push Greenland to the background, Trump will try to exploit every loophole in the system to advance as far as he will be allowed - and then the Arctic front could again become a surprise for allies.
Sources
- Censor.NET: "Trump's Greenland Claims: US Congress Could Get in the Way" — reprint of Politico material, quotes from Lisa Murkowski and Chris Koons, mention of the appointment of a special envoy to Greenland.
- Politico Europe: "Murkowski threatens congressional tools to block Trump's Greenland grab" — details of the bipartisan delegation's visit to Copenhagen, focusing on the constitutional levers of Congress.
- European and Northern European media (Danmarks Radio, DR; Greenlandic media via digests): Danish and Greenlandic reactions to the appointment of a US special envoy, statements of respect for territorial integrity and Arctic security.
