As President Donald Trump openly floats the idea of taking Greenland by military force, Republicans in Congress seem split on whether they should take the president at his word or once again dismiss his threats as empty bluster.
At the moment, most Republicans seem to be adopting an old stance on the president’s proposal: take him seriously but not literally. Trump’s rhetoric on seizing Greenland was discussed during a closed-door briefing with lawmakers on Wednesday, and Republicans critical of Trump’s bluster came away with the impression that he’ll back down.
“Let’s just say it came up, and my concerns about an imminent military operation are — they’re not something I’m worried about,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said Wednesday.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also downplayed the issue Wednesday, telling reporters that “every president, not this president, every president always retains the option” of military force on national security issues. At a smaller briefing with lawmakers on Monday, Rubio also said Trump is more interested in buying Greenland from Denmark, seemingly dismissing the prospect of a military confrontation, according to two people familiar with the exchange who were not authorized to discuss the private remarks.
But as Trump has shown repeatedly throughout his time in office, what often seems like an outlandish negotiating position can quickly turn into an official administration stance.
Trump has discussed controlling Greenland since 2019, and he told reporters Sunday that “we need Greenland.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also told MS NOW that using military force to take Greenland is “always an option.”
Despite some Republicans trying to downplay the prospect — House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana noted on Wednesday that the U.S. is “not at war with Greenland” and “we have no reason to be at war with Greenland” — other Republicans aren’t dismissing the president’s words this time around.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who now has a post-leadership role drafting the bill to fund the Department of Defense, said the “threats and intimidation” toward Greenland “are as unseemly as they are counterproductive.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, wrote on X that taking Greenland by force “would degrade both our national security and our international relationships.”
And Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., wrote on X that he met with the Danish ambassador on Wednesday, adding that he’s confident Rubio “can navigate a diplomatic win-win solution with one of our finest allies.”
Other, more isolationist Republicans also raised concerns with Trump’s proposal.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that a military invasion would be “a terrible idea” and warned that Trump’s saber-rattling won’t make it easier to establish a bigger presence in Greenland.
“If we truly wanted to acquire Greenland, the best way would be not to insult them,” Paul told MS NOW.
Paul said it’s “hard to tell” if the Trump administration is seriously considering military action but said he’s opposed to an invasion. If Trump wants to buy Greenland, he should “start with flattery” rather than threats, Paul said.
Democrats, for their part, have offered a more full-throated warning that Trump’s threats are dangerous.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters ahead of Wednesday’s briefing that the Greenland debate is “confounding and sounds absurd.”
“The first few months, people kind of joked about Greenland, but the idea that he’s potentially posing a serious military threat — nothing would lead to the absolute destruction of NATO more than American aggressive action against a long-term ally like Denmark,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told reporters Tuesday.
And Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said lawmakers need a public discussion — outside of classified briefings — about what other expansionist actions might grow out of Trump’s actions in Venezuela.
“Is Greenland next?” Kaine asked Wednesday. “Is Colombia or Mexico or Cuba next?”
But it’s not just Democrats who are concerned. Republicans supportive of the U.S.’ participation in NATO pushed back against Trump’s proposal, warning that the president could damage the U.S.’ international standing with his continued threats of seizing Greenland.
“It’s appalling,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “These are our allies.”
The Nebraska lawmaker cautioned that a U.S. military invasion into Greenland would result in the end of NATO.
But Trump’s persistent campaign to acquire Greenland one way or another has shifted the discussion on the topic, as some lawmakers — downplaying the risk of a military confrontation — said they would support a deal to purchase the country from Denmark.
“I think to invade Greenland would be weapons-grade stupid, and I don’t think President Trump is weapons-grade stupid, nor is Marco Rubio.”
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.
“Ideally, we could purchase it,” Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., told reporters Wednesday. “And that’s not, that’s not scandalous, either. I mean, that’s been an idea in our history for a while. Ideally, we could purchase it, honestly. But certainly, I don’t ever support invading Greenland in the traditional way.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said he “absolutely” supports an attempt to acquire Greenland.
“Denmark is not capable of protecting Greenland, and so, in my view, we have a very key interest in Greenland,” Schmitt told reporters Wednesday.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said that he doesn’t consider Trump’s actions to be threatening toward Denmark and that he would support a purchase.
“If we could buy it for a good price, why not?” Tuberville told MS NOW, though he said he doesn’t know what a good price would be.
An expansion of American involvement in the Arctic, short of purchasing Greenland, is a possibility. Lawmakers have already sought to expand the U.S.’ fleet of polar icebreakers and have often discussed Russia’s presence in the region. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., pushed back on talk of an invasion and said Trump may try at least to build a greater presence in the region.
“I think to invade Greenland would be weapons-grade stupid, and I don’t think President Trump is weapons-grade stupid, nor is Marco Rubio,” Kennedy told reporters. “That doesn’t mean that the president won’t try to buy Greenland or negotiate some sort of partnership.”
Still, not every Republican was certain that acquiring Greenland made sense.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he’s not convinced the U.S. needs more access to the Danish territory, noting that the current Pituffik Space Base on the polar island’s northern reaches already contributes many of the strategic benefits of owning Greenland.
“Buying Greenland? I’m not in favor,” Hawley said.
Mychael Schnell, Kevin Frey and Julia Jester contributed to this report.
