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

People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

US Capitol

Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.

The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less
WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

Republicans will need some Democratic support to pass the multi-bill spending package in time to avoid a partial government shutdown.

(Adobe Stock)

WI professor: Dems face breaking point over DHS funding feud

A Wisconsin professor is calling another potential government shutdown the ultimate test for the Democratic Party.

Congress is currently in contentious negotiations over a House-approved bill containing additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as national political uproar continues after immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, in Minneapolis during protests over the weekend.

Keep ReadingShow less