Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”


What the bill does

The No Invading Allies Act would prevent President Trump—or any president—from using military force upon Canada, Greenland, or Panama unless Congress approves.

The bill was introduced on March 6 by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI2).

Context

Canada and Greenland are both official NATO allies of the U.S., since Greenland is a territory of Denmark. (Though the island has been self-governing since 2009.)

Panama is not an official ally, since they’re neither part of NATO nor one of the official 19 “major non-NATO ally” nations. However, they’re something of an unofficial ally—the U.S. has gotten along well with the nation ever since Manuel Noriega’s military dictatorship was deposed in 1989 by a U.S. military intervention.

Trump has openly mused about annexing Greenland for military strategy in that corner of the world, annexing Panama over concerns that China is exerting too much control over the Panama Canal, and annexing Canada because he believes they’re too lax in controlling the flow of drugs over their U.S. border.

In a January press conference, asked whether he would rule out the possibility of military force to take over Greenland or Panama, the typically loquacious Trump answered with one word: “No.”

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked about the possibility of using military force on Greenland or Panama. His evasive non-answer caused Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) to reply: “That sounds to me like you would contemplate carrying out such an order.”

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that the legislative branch should exert more of a say over such a consequential and potentially fatal incursion.

“The American people do not want to take over other countries. Nobody voted in the election to take over Canada or Greenland,” Rep. Magaziner said in a House floor speech. “The president never talked about that during his campaign.”

“I urge my colleagues, whether you believe the president is serious about wanting to take over other countries or not, whether you take him at his word or not, whether you think he might involve us in unnecessary wars of conflict or not: let’s not leave it up to chance.”

What opponents say

Some opponents counter that Trump is just bluffing.

“The United States is not going to invade another country. That’s not who we are,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told NBC’s Meet the Press. Trump “is the president that kept American troops out of war. He is not looking to be able to go start a war, to go expand American troops.”

Other opponents may also counter that the Vietnam-era War Powers Act of 1973 already requires congressional approval to renew a president’s military action if it lasts at least 60 days. (Although the bill’s supporters contend that, when it comes to Canada or Panama or Greenland, such military action shouldn’t even last one day.)

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted nine Democratic cosponsors. While some congressional Republicans have expressed hesitancy or dismissal towards Trump’s threats of military force, none have actually signed onto this bill yet.

It awaits a potential vote in either the House Armed Services or Foreign Affairs Committee, both controlled by Republicans.

In the meantime, enjoy this recent viral symbolism-laden photo from wildlife photographer Mervyn Sequeira, depicting a Canadian goose scaring off an American bald eagle.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump


Read More

United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less