Congress is Trying to Stop Trump from Invading Allies—Here’s Why
Trump’s threats against Canada, Greenland, and Panama aren’t just talk—Congress is scrambling to stop unauthorized war.
Imagine waking up to the news that the U.S. military is invading Canada.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
Well, not to Donald Trump. His escalating rhetoric about seizing Greenland, "reclaiming" the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, and using military force against Mexican cartels has forced Congress to introduce a bill—yes, an actual bill—to prevent him from launching military action against our allies.
The fact that Congress even has to consider this legislation is a five-alarm warning for American democracy.
Because this isn’t just about Trump. It’s about the unchecked war powers of the presidency itself.
Checks and balances? Who needs those, amirite?
The Bill: What It Does & Why It Exists
Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-RI) recently introduced the “No Invading Allies Act”, a bill prohibiting U.S. military force against Canada, Greenland, and Panama without explicit Congressional approval.
Why? Because Trump and his administration are openly threatening military action against these countries.
Trump on Greenland:
Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, initially suggesting a purchase in 2019.
In 2025, he has refused to rule out military action to take control of the island.
Trump on the Panama Canal:
He has explicitly stated that the U.S. should “reclaim” control of the canal, a direct challenge to Panama’s sovereignty.
His allies in Congress are openly discussing using force to “secure” American access to the canal.
Trump on Mexico & Cartels:
He labeled Mexican drug cartels as “terrorist organizations,” which legally opens the door for military intervention, even inside Mexico.
His ambassador to Mexico refused to rule out drone strikes against cartel targets.
Now, the Pentagon has deployed a U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Gravely, to the Texas-Mexico border, the first time a warship has been used for “border security.”
This bill is a response to all of that. But here’s the real question: Why stop at just these three countries? Why doesn’t Congress apply this to all U.S. allies?
See our reporting on retailitory tariffs imposed by Trump here:
Trump’s Justifications: What He's Claiming & Why It’s Dangerous
Trump’s public justifications for military force are rooted in three key narratives:
Greenland = Rare Earth Minerals & Military Dominance
Greenland has massive reserves of rare earth minerals crucial for tech, military, and EV batteries. Guess who has companies that rely on those. Guess.
China dominates the global rare earth market, and Trump wants Greenland to be a U.S.-controlled resource hub.
He also wants to expand U.S. military bases in Greenland, claiming it’s necessary for Arctic defense. Because you know, the U.S. has so much arctic territory.
Reality Check: Greenland has no interest in U.S. control and has already strengthened ties with Denmark and the EU to prevent foreign takeovers.
Canada = Lumber, Energy, and a Strategic Buffer
Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber and steel, claiming Canada was “taking advantage” of U.S. trade.
Canada has massive natural resource wealth, and Trump has framed Canadian exports as a national security issue.
There are also border security claims. Trump has called for military reinforcements at the northern border despite no security threats. Darn those maple-guzzling militant moose!
Reality Check: Canada is a stable U.S. ally with one of the closest trade partnerships in the world (until now). Framing it as an adversary is pure political theater.
Panama = Control of Global Trade Routes
The Panama Canal is one of the most critical trade routes in the world, and Trump has suggested the U.S. “shouldn’t have given it away.”
China has been increasing its economic footprint in Panama, and Trump claims that U.S. intervention is necessary to “protect” trade interests.
Reality Check: The U.S. voluntarily handed over the canal to Panama in 1999 under a treaty it signed decades earlier. Any move to “reclaim” it would be an act of war. And those Chinese interests? Just sold them to U.S.-backed interests even though they didn’t have to. Maybe he’s still a little sore about that Trump hotel he lost control of in 2018…
Global Fallout: Our Allies Are Already Reacting
Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has already strengthened European alliances to prepare for a more hostile U.S. stance. They’ve also formed a strong trade partnership with… not the U.S., their once top trade partner. And Canada’s recent election was heavily influenced by Trump’s rhetoric.
Greenland’s newly elected leadership immediately condemned Trump’s threats, calling them "unacceptable" and a violation of Greenlandic sovereignty. Also, Greenland’s election saw solidarity against Trump.
NATO allies are questioning U.S. reliability, with European defense officials privately discussing contingency plans if Trump destabilizes alliances.
Mexico’s government has issued formal diplomatic warnings against U.S. military action inside its borders.
But hey, the world has rarely been so united. The difference is this time, it is against us.
The Bigger Problem: Presidential War Powers Are Completely Out of Control
This isn’t just about Trump; he’s expanding a dangerous precedent that multiple presidents before him have taken advantage of.
Presidents Have Been Expanding War Powers for Decades
Congress is supposed to control war declarations, but the last formal U.S. declaration of war was in 1942 (World War II).
Since then, presidents from both parties have launched military actions unilaterally, using vague justifications like "national security threats" or outdated war authorizations.
Obama bombed Libya. Trump assassinated Soleimani. Biden bombed Syria. Now, Trump is bombing Yemen and threatening military action in Mexico. And need I remind you about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
Congress Keeps Surrendering Its Authority
Congress passes vague war authorizations that presidents then stretch beyond recognition.
Instead of revoking these outdated powers, Congress often fails to act and allows the White House to expand military operations without oversight.
Why would a president respect it if Congress won’t enforce its own power?
The Courts Have Completely Failed to Stop This
When members of Congress or activists have sued presidents for unauthorized military action, courts have dismissed cases, claiming war powers are a “political issue.”
The War Powers Resolution of 1973, designed to limit unilateral presidential war-making, is routinely ignored because Congress doesn’t enforce it, and courts won’t intervene.
Presidents Are Using Legal Loopholes to Justify War
2001 & 2002 AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force)—initially meant for Afghanistan and Iraq—are still being used today to justify military action in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Declaring "terrorist threats" (like Trump labeling Mexican cartels as terrorists) allows military action without needing new approval.
The more these loopholes are exploited, the more future presidents inherit unchecked power.
Bottom Line: If Congress doesn’t act to reclaim its war powers now, the next president—Republican or Democrat—will have even more power to start wars without oversight.
See our reporting here on Trump’s cartel gamble and one Representative’s plan to enlist bounty hunters on Mexican soil:
This is How Authoritarianism Takes Root
Unchecked Military Power is a Classic Tool of Authoritarians
If a president can send the military anywhere without approval, what stops them from using that power to suppress dissent at home?
If a president can justify war under “national security” without checks, how long before that includes domestic crackdowns?
History Shows How This Ends
Rome → The Roman Republic fell when generals started using the military without Senate approval. Julius Caesar used this power to seize control and declare himself emperor.
Nazi Germany → Hitler expanded military power without legislative oversight, claiming it was necessary for national security. The result? Totalitarian rule.
Post-9/11 America → The U.S. passed the 2001 AUMF, which is STILL being used today to justify unauthorized military actions across the world.
We are already at the stage where the president can deploy military assets near allied territories. The only thing stopping outright action is Congressional pushback—and right now, that’s not happening.
What Needs to Happen Now
Step 1: Expand the Bill to Cover ALL U.S. Allies
Why only Canada, Greenland, and Panama?
Mexico, NATO allies, and other partners should also be protected from unauthorized U.S. military action.
If Congress truly wants to reassert its constitutional war powers, this bill must include all military intervention.
Step 2: Repeal the 2001 & 2002 War Authorizations
The AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force), originally meant for Afghanistan and Iraq, are still being used today to justify military actions everywhere from Syria to Yemen.
Congress must revoke these outdated war authorizations to prevent future presidents from using them as blank checks for war.
Step 3: Enforce the War Powers Resolution—For Real This Time
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was meant to limit presidential war-making, but every president since has ignored it.
Congress should cut funding for unauthorized military actions to force compliance.
Courts must stop dismissing war powers lawsuits and actually rule on executive overreach.
The real issue here isn’t just Trump—the presidency has accumulated too much unchecked military power. If Congress and the courts don’t act now, this might be the last chance to stop the U.S. from sliding into permanent military rule.
As I write this, the threat of war in the Middle East grows as the Houthis declare war in response to U.S. missile attacks. Ironic that the man that ran on ending forever wars and becoming American First isolationists can’t keep his hands, mouth, and ass out of other countries’ business and it perilously close to dumping us into another altercation.
Call to Action: Hold Congress Accountable
This bill only has 8 Democratic co-sponsors. Where are the rest?
Why haven’t Republicans who claim to be “anti-war” signed on?
Contact your representative and demand they support this bill—or explain why they’re fine with a president unilaterally starting wars.
The fight over this bill isn’t just about Trump; it’s about whether future presidents— should we have any— will have total, unchecked war powers. If Congress and the courts don’t act now, this might be the last chance to stop the presidency from becoming a dictatorship.
This is one of many steps that must be taken to get executive power — under any leader— under control.
You power the Coffman Chronicle—no billionaires, no corporate overlords. Help us expose the BS, deliver sharp insights, and keep you informed.
You can fuel the fight and join the movement for just $8 a month or $80 a year.
Not ready to subscribe? No worries, chaos loves company, and you're always welcome.
Bibliography:
"Trump refuses to rule out military action to take Greenland, reviving 2019 dispute," AP News, March 8, 2025.
"China’s Xi Is Angered by Panama Port Deal That Trump Touted as a Win," Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2025.
"Greenland's new prime minister firmly rejects Trump’s latest takeover threats." The Guardian, March 13, 2025.
"Canada strengthens European ties as Trump escalates trade and security tensions." AP News, March 9, 2025.
"Trump’s Mexico ambassador won’t rule out military drone strikes on cartels." Axios, March 13, 2025.
"Trump administration designates Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations." State Department, January 20, 2025.
"Congress introduces bill to block Trump from unilaterally invading allies." Magaziner House Press Release, March 6, 2025.
"China reacts angrily to U.S.-led takeover of Panama port assets from CK Hutchison." Financial Times, March 15, 2025.
"North Korea condemns U.S. strikes against Yemen, warns of escalating global conflict." Reuters, March 18, 2025.
"Democrats criticize Musk-Trump foreign policy as billionaire’s power grows." The Guardian, March 16, 2025.
Can it also not be pointed out that the King of Canada is the King of the UK. If you attack Canada, Britain will get involved, along with the entire Commonwealth, which includes Australia by the way. The King has been very pointed in making this clear in recent weeks.
How about putting him in a Salvadoran prison!?