A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is advancing legislation aimed at preventing unauthorized military action by President Donald Trump against U.S. allies, a move triggered by recent comments suggesting the U.S. might acquire Greenland “one way or the other.”

The bill, led by Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), along with Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), and Don Bacon (R-Neb.), would restrict funding for any unauthorized military action against NATO allies or partners. While not explicitly naming Greenland, the legislation’s timing and focus clearly respond to Trump’s escalating rhetoric about the Danish territory.

“This is about our fundamental shared goals and our fundamental security, not just in Europe, but in the United States itself,” Keating said in a statement. The Massachusetts congressman emphasized that the bill’s scope intentionally extends beyond Greenland to address broader security concerns, noting he had met with both the Danish Ambassador and Greenland representatives during the drafting process.

The lawmakers are currently seeking broader support for the measure, especially among Republican colleagues, as they attempt to build a coalition strong enough to pass the legislation. Keating specifically highlighted funding restrictions as the most effective deterrent against potential military action.

“War powers are important, but we’ve seen with Democratic and Republican presidents that that’s not as effective,” Keating explained. “It’s hard to get around having no funds or not allowing personnel to do it.”

This legislative push follows Trump’s unambiguous statements about acquiring the resource-rich Arctic territory. “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,” Trump declared on Friday. “Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”

Any military action against Greenland would represent a direct violation of NATO’s foundational Article V, which establishes that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all alliance members. Such a move could potentially fracture the 75-year-old alliance that has been central to Western security since World War II.

The proposal comes amid growing international concern. Greenland’s political leadership has unequivocally rejected U.S. acquisition overtures. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, alongside four party leaders, issued a statement affirming: “We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders.” They emphasized that “Greenland’s future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.”

European leaders have similarly rallied behind Greenland and Denmark. A joint statement signed by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and the leaders of Italy, Spain, and Poland declared: “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

The Greenland controversy unfolds as the Senate recently advanced a separate bipartisan resolution limiting Trump’s authority to conduct further military operations against Venezuela, following U.S. actions to capture President Nicolás Maduro. While that measure may pass the Senate this week, its future in the House remains uncertain.

Congressional reactions to the Greenland issue have largely split along party lines. Most Democrats oppose any forcible acquisition, while some Republicans have voiced support for expanding U.S. influence in the strategically valuable territory. Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) has even introduced legislation to make Greenland the 51st U.S. state, though he emphasized that voluntary acquisition would be preferable.

“I think it is in the world’s interest for the United States to exert sovereignty over Greenland,” Fine told Fox News.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, holds significant strategic value due to its Arctic location, natural resources, and proximity to both North America and Europe. It has become increasingly important in geopolitical calculations as climate change opens new shipping routes and access to minerals and other resources.