Imagine the United States, a global superpower, turning its military might against Greenland, a peaceful Arctic island. It sounds like the plot of a geopolitical thriller, but this scenario could spark a crisis with NATO, potentially unraveling the very alliance that has kept the West united for decades. Republican Rep. Michael McCaul issued a stark warning on Sunday, emphasizing that any U.S. military intervention to seize Greenland would not only alienate America’s NATO allies but could also mark the beginning of the end for the alliance itself.
During an interview on This Week, co-anchor Jonathan Karl pressed McCaul, the chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees, on the president’s recent actions. ‘What’s your take on the president’s fixation with Greenland? He’s imposed tariffs on eight European allies and hasn’t ruled out using military force to acquire the island. What’s really going on here?’ Karl asked.
McCaul acknowledged Greenland’s strategic importance as an autonomous territory of Denmark, noting that previous administrations have explored acquiring it. However, he pointed out that the U.S. already has a treaty granting ‘full access’ to protect Greenland, effectively eliminating the need for an invasion. ‘The president already has full military access to Greenland to safeguard us from any threats,’ McCaul explained. ‘If he wants to purchase it, that’s one thing. But a military invasion would flip Article 5 of NATO on its head, essentially declaring war on the alliance itself. It would dismantle NATO as we know it.’
McCaul further clarified, ‘If we want to increase our military presence there, we can do so without invading. If the president wants to buy it, that’s his prerogative. But there’s no willing seller at the moment.’
Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen echoed McCaul’s concerns on the same program, accusing the president of ‘lying’ when he frames the Greenland issue as a matter of national security. ‘Denmark and Greenland have explicitly told the U.S. to take any measures necessary to protect American and NATO security,’ Van Hollen stated. ‘We already have a base there, which we can expand. This isn’t about security—it’s a land grab. Donald Trump wants Greenland’s minerals and resources, just as his intervention in Venezuela had nothing to do with stopping drug trafficking.’
But here’s where it gets controversial: When asked if Congress could prevent the president from using force to take Greenland, Van Hollen suggested invoking the War Powers Resolution. ‘We could cut off funds for military action in Greenland or take steps under the War Powers Resolution,’ he said. ‘But many Republican colleagues talk tough until it’s time to vote. We saw this recently when two GOP senators backed off after initially supporting the War Powers Resolution on Venezuela. They need to stop giving Donald Trump a blank check.’*
Van Hollen also criticized the president’s threats of military intervention in Iran, particularly amid reports of thousands of protesters being killed in anti-regime demonstrations. ‘We shouldn’t use American military force to impose democracy on Iran,’ he argued. ‘We should support the protesters, but the U.S. president shouldn’t imply we’ll provide military aid to overthrow the regime.’
And this is the part most people miss: The Greenland issue isn’t just about territory—it’s a test of America’s commitment to its allies and the rules-based international order. If the U.S. were to invade Greenland, it would set a dangerous precedent, undermining trust in NATO and potentially triggering a global crisis. Is this a risk worth taking? Or is the president’s pursuit of Greenland a misguided strategy with far-reaching consequences?* Weigh in below—let’s spark a debate!
