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

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less