President Donald Trump's push to acquire Greenland has sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress, as lawmakers voice growing concern about US military interventions overseas. But it remains unclear if enough Republicans are willing to join Democrats to block a takeover of the island territory - and whether Trump would bow to pressure from Congress, or act alone as he's done several times in a second term marked by growing American entanglements abroad.
The focus on Greenland has grown into a broader discussion over the Trump administration's unilateral use of military force, along with diplomatic and economic coercion, to project power in Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere around the world.
Republicans have largely backed Trump's foreign policy agenda since he returned to the White House. But now, an increasing number are siding with Democrats in Congress and NATO allies who say a takeover of Greenland would violate US and international law.
In recent days, some Republican leaders have said there's little interest in the US buying Greenland or seizing it through military force. The White House had previously left the military option on the table but on Wednesday it was ruled out by Trump during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Some Republican lawmakers have also joined Democrats in opposing Trump's new plan to place tariffs on countries that don't back his bid to acquire the territory, which is self-governed but controlled by Denmark. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina expressed that such tariffs would be detrimental to American interests.
With Trump's insistence on obtaining Greenland increasingly unpopular on Capitol Hill, several Republicans have started to voice their dissent publicly. Some, like Senator Lisa Murkowski, argue that respect for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland should be non-negotiable.
The President's statements have stressed that acquiring Greenland is crucial for US national security, claiming it would prevent China and Russia from expanding their influence in the Arctic region.
As Republicans in Congress weigh their options, they might be able to use their legislative powers to prevent Trump from pursuing military actions unilaterally. However, it is uncertain if their proposals would gather enough support to effectively challenge the President's intentions regarding Greenland.
The focus on Greenland has grown into a broader discussion over the Trump administration's unilateral use of military force, along with diplomatic and economic coercion, to project power in Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere around the world.
Republicans have largely backed Trump's foreign policy agenda since he returned to the White House. But now, an increasing number are siding with Democrats in Congress and NATO allies who say a takeover of Greenland would violate US and international law.
In recent days, some Republican leaders have said there's little interest in the US buying Greenland or seizing it through military force. The White House had previously left the military option on the table but on Wednesday it was ruled out by Trump during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Some Republican lawmakers have also joined Democrats in opposing Trump's new plan to place tariffs on countries that don't back his bid to acquire the territory, which is self-governed but controlled by Denmark. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina expressed that such tariffs would be detrimental to American interests.
With Trump's insistence on obtaining Greenland increasingly unpopular on Capitol Hill, several Republicans have started to voice their dissent publicly. Some, like Senator Lisa Murkowski, argue that respect for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland should be non-negotiable.
The President's statements have stressed that acquiring Greenland is crucial for US national security, claiming it would prevent China and Russia from expanding their influence in the Arctic region.
As Republicans in Congress weigh their options, they might be able to use their legislative powers to prevent Trump from pursuing military actions unilaterally. However, it is uncertain if their proposals would gather enough support to effectively challenge the President's intentions regarding Greenland.
