House Democrats Move to Block Trump from Invading Allied Territories

In a bold and unprecedented move, House Democrats have introduced legislation aimed at preventing former President Donald Trump from unilaterally invading or seizing territory from three key nations: Greenland, Canada, and Panama. The measure, titled the No Invading Allies Act, is spearheaded by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) and co-sponsored by several other Democratic lawmakers. This effort comes in response to Trump’s repeated rhetorical flirtations with expanding U.S. territory, which Democrats argue are reckless and unbefitting of a leader entrusted with war powers. By barring federal funding for military operations aimed at occupying these territories, the bill seeks to rein in Trump’s ambitions and reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over matters of war and peace.

The No Invading Allies Act: A Democratic Response to Trump’s Rhetoric

Rep. Magaziner has been vocal about the necessity of the No Invading Allies Act, framing it as a necessary check on Trump’s impulsive and unpredictable foreign policy instincts. "Americans do not support sending troops to unnecessary wars, especially with allies of the United States who pose no threat to our country," Magaziner remarked. The congressman emphasized that Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of force to acquire territory from Greenland, Canada, and Panama raises serious concerns about his judgment. "Under the Constitution," Magaziner noted, "it is Congress, not the President, who has the power to declare war. It is time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional power and ensure that the President adheres to the will of the American people."

The bill has garnered support from other prominent Democrats, including Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who share concerns about Trump’s approach to foreign policy. The legislation has been referred to both the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees for further consideration. While the bill’s prospects in the Republican-controlled House are uncertain, its introduction reflects a broader Democratic effort to curtail Trump’s ability to act unilaterally on matters of war and territorial expansion.

Trump’s Vision for Expanding American Territory

At the heart of the Democratic backlash is Trump’s long-standing fascination with expanding U.S. territory. For months, the former president has publicly entertained the idea of acquiring Greenland, Canada, and Panama, often framing these ambitions as necessary for U.S. security and economic interests. In a joint address to Congress, Trump explicitly stated that the U.S. would "reclaim the Panama Canal for security reasons" and "welcome Greenland into the United States of America if its people so choose." He has also repeatedly referred to Canada as the "51st state," a notion that has been met with widespread ridicule and concern.

Trump’s rhetoric on these issues has only intensified in recent months. In a December 2024 post on his social media platform, Truth Social, he declared that "the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity" for the United States. Such statements have led many to question whether Trump genuinely intends to pursue military action to achieve these goals, or if they are merely symbolic gestures to his base. Regardless of his intentions, Democrats argue that Trump’s words carry real-world consequences and demand a robust response from Congress.

International Pushback Against Trump’s Ambitions

Not surprisingly, Trump’s comments have been met with fierce resistance from the leaders of the targeted nations. Múte Egede, the Prime Minister of Greenland, responded sharply to Trump’s overtures, stating, "We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes, we are Kalaallit (Greenlanders). The Americans and their leader must understand that." Similarly, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino rejected Trump’s claims outright, calling them an "affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation." Canadian leaders have also made clear that they view Trump’s remarks as anything but humorous, with Trudeau himself criticizing the former president’s "irresponsible" rhetoric.

These strong reactions underscore the delicate nature of international relations and the potential consequences of Trump’s inflammatory language. For many, the very idea of the United States attempting to annex or occupy territories belonging to its allies and partners is not only implausible but also deeply offensive. It has also raised questions about how seriously Trump’s words should be taken, given his history of hyperbole and exaggerated claims.

The Broader Debate Over War Powers and Presidential Authority

The No Invading Allies Act also highlights a broader constitutional debate over war powers and the balance of authority between the executive and legislative branches. While the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war, this authority has been increasingly eroded in practice. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, during World War II. Since then, presidents have relied on a combination of executive authority, international agreements, and informal congressional resolutions to justify military interventions.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was intended to address this issue by requiring the executive branch to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and forbidding troops from remaining engaged for more than 60 days without congressional approval. However