Republican Representative Don Bacon (R-Neb.) suggested this week that U.S. President Donald Trump could face impeachment from both parties if he were to follow through on rhetoric about invading Greenland, potentially bringing a third impeachment proceeding against the former president.
In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, Bacon, a veteran and representative of Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, expressed alarm over Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland — an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and a NATO partner — by force or pressure.
Bacon characterized the idea as “utter buffoonery” and warned that acting on such threats would likely spell “the end of his presidency.”
“If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency,” Bacon told the paper, adding that he would “lean toward” supporting impeachment if Trump ordered military action against the Danish territory.
The lawmaker also claimed that “so many Republicans” are troubled by the president’s comments on Greenland.
Political and Legal Ramifications
Bacon’s remarks signal one of the most forceful Republican warnings yet that unilateral military designs on Greenland could fracture support for Trump within his own party. Greenland’s status as an autonomous entity within the Kingdom of Denmark — a key NATO ally — means any invasion would raise serious legal and constitutional issues:
- War Powers and Constitutional Limits: Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. A presidential order to invade a sovereign or allied territory without congressional authorization could trigger legal challenges and be cited as an impeachable offense.
- Impeachment Precedent: Trump has already been impeached twice — first in 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and again in 2021 on incitement of insurrection — but was acquitted both times in the Senate. This new threat highlights how far impeachment discussions could extend into foreign policy and national security domains.
- Bipartisan Concern: While House Democrats have historically been cautious about pursuing a third impeachment, particularly with the GOP controlling the chamber, Bacon’s comments suggest that extreme foreign adventures might shift some Republican lawmakers’ calculus, especially if actions appear to violate constitutional authority or international norms.
Context: Trump’s Greenland Rhetoric
Trump’s controversial stance on Greenland has become a flashpoint in U.S.–allied relations. The president has publicly stated that any outcome short of U.S. control of the Arctic territory is “unacceptable,” despite Denmark and Greenland rejecting U.S. takeover proposals. Polls indicate a vast majority of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States.
International reactions have underscored the broader stakes: Danish and NATO officials have reiterated that Greenland’s defense should remain under existing multilateral arrangements, warning that any unilateral action could undermine alliance cohesion and violate international law.
Impeachment as a Constitutional Check
In American constitutional practice, impeachment is a political process intended to check “high crimes and misdemeanors,” including abuses of executive power and actions that exceed constitutional authority. A unilateral attempt to use military force against a NATO ally or autonomous territory could be construed by critics as an abuse of presidential power, giving rise to grounds for impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives.
However, any such effort would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate for conviction and removal — a high bar, particularly in a deeply divided political environment.
Bacon’s comments, though not a formal impeachment resolution, amplify a rare Republican critique and highlight serious constitutional questions that could accompany extreme foreign policy decisions.
Whether other lawmakers follow suit or take formal steps toward impeachment would depend on the evolving political context and any concrete actions taken by the administration.
