By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to heightened concerns regarding Greenland, Senator Ruben Gallego announced a resolution aimed at preventing a potential invasion by former President Donald Trump. Gallego’s resolution comes amidst Trump’s statements, including a recent interview, indicating the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. defense. The senator’s action directly counters Trump’s rhetoric, which has fueled speculation about the United States’ interest in the self-governing Danish territory. Furthermore, Gallego introduced an amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill to prohibit the use of funds for military force against Greenland.
Read the original article here
Resolution to block Trump from invading Greenland introduced by Sen. Gallego. This is a sentence I never thought I’d have to write, yet here we are. It seems that Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona has taken the rather extraordinary step of introducing a resolution to prevent a potential invasion of Greenland by former President Donald Trump. Considering the current political climate, and the fact that such a situation is even being discussed, it highlights the unusual and, frankly, concerning times we live in.
Gallego’s public statements on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, are pretty blunt. He seems to be responding to an increase in talk, or rhetoric, from the Trump camp about the United States taking over Greenland. The Senator’s sense of urgency is clear: “Trump is telling us exactly what he wants to do. We must stop him before he invades another country on a whim.” The use of the word “invade” is quite strong and suggests the gravity of the situation as perceived by Gallego.
Beyond the resolution itself, Gallego also introduced an amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill, intending to prevent the use of funds for any military action against Greenland. This is a direct, practical measure aimed at restricting the government’s ability to act on any such ideas.
The potential implications of Trump even *considering* such a move are far-reaching. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut offered a particularly pointed perspective. He suggested that if a NATO ally like Greenland were to be invaded by the United States under Trump, other European members of NATO would have to reassess their participation in the alliance. Murphy then made it clear that NATO would be obligated to defend Greenland, essentially setting up a scenario where a NATO member would be defending another against *another* NATO member, which presents a situation unlike anything the alliance has ever seen.
The reaction, or lack thereof, from the Republican party will be a key indicator of where things stand. The resolution provides a clear test of loyalty and principles. Will Republicans support a measure that prevents a controversial action, potentially undermining a cornerstone of international security and relationships, or will they prioritize loyalty to Trump? Some commenters rightly point out that such a move may even be perceived as an act of treason.
This situation goes way beyond Greenland, however. It reveals a pattern of behavior and a disregard for norms that have characterized the Trump years. Some are worried that this is yet another attempt to distract us from other pressing issues, such as the Epstein files or Venezuela.
There’s also a recurring theme of the dangers of Trump’s actions potentially starting a larger conflict. Some go so far as to suggest that such actions, or even consideration of them, could set the stage for a century of Chinese dominance on the world stage, as the US isolates itself. The fact that this is something that anyone considers plausible is troubling in itself.
In a situation like this, impeachment is the obvious path forward for some. It seems like the only method of enforcing the rules for some. Others ask: what can Congress actually do? Some believe that even resolutions, let alone laws, are ineffective in deterring Trump. The sentiment is that he operates outside of the normal rules, and that more drastic action is required.
Others make a good point, which is that a resolution of this sort, on the surface, might seem laughable, absurd. But the reality is that the situation is real, and the implications are serious. If this goes ahead, it has the potential to start a military conflict that could threaten the global balance of power.
From what I can tell, the situation seems to rest on whether or not enough members of Congress recognize the seriousness of the situation to take action. This resolution will serve as a definitive litmus test, a gauge of both the political climate and the willingness of those in power to uphold the principles of international law and order.