A bipartisan group of US senators has introduced legislation aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from attempting to annex or occupy Greenland, the self-governing Danish territory and NATO member state.

The move, formalized as the NATO Unity Protection Act, comes amid mounting concern over Trump’s repeated assertions that the United States should gain control of Greenland, citing strategic and resource-based interests in the Arctic.

---

Key Provisions of the NATO Unity Protection Act

The legislation, introduced on January 14, 2026, would bar the Department of Defense and Department of State from using federal funds to:

• Blockade, occupy, annex, or assert control over the territory of any NATO member state.
• Take unilateral military or political action that could undermine NATO’s collective security commitments.

Authored by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the bill represents a rare instance of bipartisan pushback against the president.

“This bipartisan legislation makes clear that US taxpayer dollars cannot be used for actions that would fracture NATO and violate our own commitments,” Shaheen said.
“Recent rhetoric around Greenland undermines America’s national security and faces bipartisan opposition in Congress.”

Murkowski, a longtime critic of Trump within her party, emphasized the importance of NATO:

“The notion that America would use its resources against its allies is deeply troubling and must be wholly rejected by Congress,” she said.

---

Trump’s Greenland Plans Spark International Alarm

President Trump has repeatedly stated that Greenland, with its vast fossil fuel and critical mineral reserves, is crucial to US national security. He has even suggested that the United States might need to use force to secure control of the Arctic territory.

“I’d love to make a deal with them. It’s easier,” Trump said.
“But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”

These statements have alarmed European allies and NATO officials, raising concerns about a potential breach of international law and the alliance’s principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

Experts, including Jessica Peake, an international law scholar at UCLA, hope the bill will “place restraint on the president acting unilaterally” to protect NATO relationships.

---

Denmark and Greenland Push Back

In response to Trump’s claims, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen issued strong statements defending Copenhagen’s sovereignty:

“If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Nielsen said.
“We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.”

The Danish government has planned meetings with US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, to address escalating tensions. A bipartisan delegation of US lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Chris Coons and Republican Senator Thom Tillis, is also scheduled to meet with Danish authorities in Copenhagen.

---

Public Opinion in Greenland

Polling indicates overwhelming opposition among Greenland residents to US control. A survey conducted by Danish newspaper Berlingske found that 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, with only 6% expressing support.

Greenland’s population of roughly 57,000 has consistently expressed interest in maintaining autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark rather than becoming part of the United States.

---

Strategic Importance of Greenland

Greenland holds strategic significance in the Arctic for multiple reasons:

• Its location provides critical access to Arctic shipping routes.
• Vast reserves of rare earth minerals and fossil fuels are essential for global energy and technology markets.
• Control of Greenland could impact US, Russian, and Chinese strategic influence in the Arctic region.

Trump has argued that if the United States does not take action, China or Russia could gain influence over the island, further raising geopolitical stakes.

---

Broader Implications

The NATO Unity Protection Act underscores Congressional authority over military funding and serves as a check on unilateral executive action, reinforcing the United States’ commitment to NATO allies.

The bill also sends a clear message internationally: the US cannot unilaterally seize territory from allied nations without risking diplomatic and legal consequences.