A group of bipartisan U.S. lawmakers has introduced new legislation aimed at preventing the president from using federal funds or military force against NATO allies or their territories without explicit authorization from Congress.
The move that reflects growing concern in both parties over executive conduct and alliance commitments amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
The proposed measure, often referred to as the No Funds for NATO Invasion Act, was introduced by Republican Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.) together with Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Bill Keating (Mass.), Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), and Rep. Brendan Boyle (Pa.). The bill would bar the use of Department of Defense or Department of State appropriations to support any military action, blockade, occupation, annexation, or control of the territory of a NATO member state without that nation’s consent and without producing a formal declaration of war or other statutory authority from Congress.
Lawmakers sponsoring the bill argue it is necessary to reinforce U.S. treaty obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — the alliance founded on mutual defense and shared security — and to explicitly constrain any unilateral executive attempt to employ military force against friendly nations.
“For almost 80 years, NATO has been the foundation for peace and cooperation between the United States and our European allies,” said Bacon’s office in a joint statement, emphasizing that the legislation reaffirms Congressional authority over declarations of war and funding for military action.
Context: Rising Tensions Over Greenland, NATO Unity
The effort follows heightened concerns among U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy experts over controversial comments by President Donald Trump regarding Greenland, a strategic Arctic territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and a NATO ally’s autonomous region. Trump’s remarks about acquiring Greenland — including suggesting that military options were being considered — drew sharp rebukes from Danish and Greenlandic officials, who insisted the territory is not for sale and must remain under Danish sovereignty.
In response to the broader diplomatic strain, some lawmakers have also taken steps to reassure NATO partners of the United States’ commitment to collective defense. A bipartisan congressional delegation led by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and including Republicans such as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is planning a visit to Copenhagen to meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials and reinforce alliance ties.
In the Senate, a complementary bill known as the NATO Unity Protection Act, introduced by Republicans like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Democrats including Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would prohibit using any DoD or State Department funds to annex or assert control over NATO member territory without consent from the North Atlantic Council — NATO’s principal political decision-making body.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The newly introduced House bill taps into longstanding constitutional debates over war powers, Congressional authority, and executive overreach. Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war or authorize military force, and federal funding must align with that authority. By directly restricting the use of federal dollars for unauthorized military action, the legislation reinforces that principle and reasserts legislative oversight. Legal scholars say such measures aim to ensure that alliances and treaty obligations are respected, particularly during periods of contentious executive rhetoric or unilateral policy shifts.
As the bill moves forward, it will likely undergo committee review and debate, where questions about national security, alliance commitments, and executive authority will play a central role in shaping its prospects for passage.
