Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

Aappilattoq fishing village, South Greenland.

Getty Images, Posnov

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly 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.

President Donald Trump wants the U.S. to control Greenland. A bill in Congress could help.


The bill

laying off Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America great again,” the Make Greenland Great Again Act would give the president congressional authorization to enter into negotiations with Denmark about acquiring their territory. The bill would technically apply to any president, not just to Trump.

It would also specify that any such potential Greenland acquisition deal becomes official unless Congress disapproves it within 60 days. That’s essentially the exact opposite of the way international deals like treaties are supposed to work: namely, that even if the president signs a treaty, the U.S. only becomes a party once Congress affirmatively approves it.

The House bill was introduced on January 13 by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context: Trump

In his first term, Trump expressed interest in U.S. ownership of Greenland, whether through a financial purchase or a potential land trade – with one trade reportedly involving the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. The whole Greenland idea, originally pitched to Trump by fellow billionaire Ronald Lauder of the Estée Lauder cosmetics company, ultimately went nowhere.

The U.S. previously attempted to purchase Greenland in 1868 for $5.5 million, then again in 1946 for $100 million. But certain aspects make the current idea different.

  • Timing: The U.S. hasn’t added new territory since 1947. So while adding Greenland very much fit the trend of national expansion circa 1868 or 1946, it’s literally unprecedented within the lifetimes of most Americans alive today.
  • Military possibility: In a press conference two weeks before his second inauguration, Trump refused to rule out military force to obtain Greenland.

Context: Greenland itself

Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, home to only 56,000 people. For comparison, five random U.S. small cities or towns with populations around that size are Harrisonburg, Virginia; Parker, Colorado; Euless, Texas; Sammamish, Washington; and Manhattan, Kansas.

But what Greenland lacks in people it makes up in size, natural resources, and geographical importance.

  • Size: it’s the largest island in the world, with more square miles than Mexico.
  • Natural resources: the land is plentiful with elements used in technologies like electric vehicles and artificial intelligence, plus oil reserves representing potentially more than four years’ worth of U.S. usage.
  • Geographical importance: Greenland is near geopolitical rivals China and Russia, which is why the U.S. has maintained a military base there since 1951.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the U.S. needs Greenland to better defend against its geopolitical rivals.

“The acquisition of Greenland by the United States is essential to our national security,” Rep. Ogles said in a press release days before Trump was inaugurated. “Joe Biden took a blowtorch to our reputation these past four years, [but] before even taking office, President Trump is telling the world that America First is back. American economic and security interests will no longer take a backseat.”

Trump’s top foreign policy official also defended the idea.

Greenland “long has been a curiosity or something people have not talked about, but I think now we have the opportunity to see it for what it is,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his Senate confirmation hearing. “And that is, if not the most important, one of the most critical parts of the world over the next 100 years will be whether there's going to be freedom of navigation in the Arctic, and what that will mean for global trade and commerce.”

What opponents say

Greenland and Denmark's political leaders have expressed hesitancy.

“We don’t want to be Americans,” Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede said in a Fox News interview with Bret Baier. “We don’t want to be a part of the U.S., but we want a strong cooperation together with the U.S.”

“Greenland is not for sale,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed, in her office’s summary of points she made to Trump on a phone call. “It is up to Greenland itself to make a decision on independence.”

Former President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy official also opposes the proposal.

“The idea expressed about Greenland is obviously not a good one,” Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference. “But maybe more important, it’s obviously one that’s not going to happen.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted 16 cosponsors, all Republicans. Curiously, one of the original cosponsors – Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL2) – withdrew only two days after signing on, but didn’t provide a public reason why.

It now awaits a potential vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.

A similar bill

On February 10, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1) introduced a similar bill, with a noteworthy addition: it would rename Greenland as Red, White, and Blueland.

“America is back and will soon be bigger than ever,” Rep. Carter said in a press release. “President Trump has correctly identified the purchase of what is now Greenland as a national security priority, and we will proudly welcome its people to join the freest nation to ever exist when our Negotiator-in-Chief inks this monumental deal.”

The Red, White, and Blueland Act awaits a potential vote in either the House Foreign Affairs or Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans. It has not yet attracted any cosponsors.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday 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: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term


Read More

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots on March 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Unpacking War Powers in the U.S.-Iran Conflict: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

What Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law enacted by Congress that limits the U.S. president’s ability to wage or escalate military operations overseas. Passed on November 7, 1973 amid the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress’ constitutional power “to declare war” and “to raise and support Armies.” A key provision of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of military deployment in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress detailing:

  • The circumstances requiring U.S. forces;
  • The constitutional or legislative justification for the president’s actions;
  • The estimated duration of U.S. involvement in the hostilities.

If Congress does not formally declare war or enact special authorization for continuation of the U.S’ involvement in a conflict within 60 days of the report’s submission, the president must withdraw U.S. troops from the hostilities. If Congress does declare war, the president is instructed under the War Powers Resolution to report to Congress periodically on the status of the hostilities no less than once every 6 months.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."

Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing

Both chambers of Congress are in session this week and next. The House will probably function about like it has been - lots of votes (often by voice) on uncontroversial bills; many fewer votes on Republican priority bills. Lots of hearings this week and a few legislator updates.

Committee Meetings

Both chambers have a busy week with 64 total committee meetings scheduled.

Keep ReadingShow less