WASHINGTON –President Donald Trumpsays a lot of things that make life harder for congressional Republicans.
For many of them, his recent fixation with acquiring Greenland was in a class of its own.
The unease on Capitol Hill was palpableafter the commander in chief repeatedly refused to rule out using military force to occupy the resource-rich island,saying on Jan. 9: "If we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way."
In the halls between the Senate and House of Representatives, GOP lawmakers bristled at the notion that the United States could launch hostilities against the territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, called the potential seizure of Greenland, whichpolling shows most Americans oppose, an "especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America."
Greenlanders march in defiance of Trump's efforts to claim the island
"Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She made the comments standing alongside a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers who traveled to Copenhagen on Jan. 16 in hopes of easing Danish leaders' concerns about Trump's hostile rhetoric.
Read more:'Ally,' not 'asset': In Denmark, US lawmakers push back on Trump
The controversy – which reached a détente on Jan. 21, after the president said he arrived at a "framework of a future deal" with the head of NATO – set up arguably one of the most trying tests of GOP loyalty of the president's second term.
In one sense, it demonstrated Trump's continued dominance over many Republican lawmakers, who lauded his hardline negotiating style and harkened back toprevious unsuccessful bids by American presidentsto purchase the world's largest non-continental island.
At the same time, the debate revealed hints of the limits on that influence, especially when it comes to weighty issues, such as retaining the NATO alliance.
Read more:The GOP is drawing a red line for Trump on Greenland. It's military action.
And it's not over: Trump has yet to outline the details of the new agreement he reached. Exactly what that framework ultimately looks like could invite a fresh litmus test for congressional Republicans.
Regardless of the contours of that deal, many of them are already working overtime to smooth over strains within NATO, which has long been considered America's most important alliance.
"This is problematic that the president has made this statement and has caused tension among the alliance," Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CBS's"Face the Nation"on Jan. 18. "And there certainly is going to be continuation of a discussion among all of our allies as to what could this mean."
In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, put it more bluntly.
"There are so many Republicans mad about this," hesaid Jan. 14, calling Trump's approach to Greenland"utter buffoonery."
Read more:Has Trump's control over the GOP in Congress waned? It's complicated.
Republicans relieved after Trump rules out use of force against Greenland
After weeks of veiled threats toward the Danes, Trumpultimately softened his languagein a Jan. 21 speech to other world leaders in Davos, Switzerland.
In remarks at the World Economic Forum, he definitively said military action against Greenland – where the United States already has an active base – wasn't on the table. (He alsoappeared to confuse Iceland and Greenlandmultiple times in the same speech, though White House officials have denied that his multiple mentions of Iceland were a slip of the tongue.)
"I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland," Trump said.
After the president's assurances, many Republicans breathed a sigh of relief.
"I was pleased to see the president made clear we're not going to use force to resolve his concerns here," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, told USA TODAY on Jan. 22. "We need to continue to work in concert with Denmark and our European allies. And I think we will."
Trump later announced on social media that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte hadreached an agreementthat would allow the United States to bolster its military presence in Greenland with "total access" while not formally acquiring the country.
"We're getting everything we want at no cost," he said.
Read more:What's in Trump's 'framework' Greenland deal? Here's what we know
It wasn't immediately clear what new changes were solidified. A 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark already gives the American military the right to construct bases in Greenland and move freely about the Arctic island. And Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said he wasn't initially involved in the discussion with Trump and Rutte.
"I don't know what there is in the agreement, or the deal, about my country," he told reporters in the capital of Nuuk.
Although they didn't know the specifics, many GOP lawmakers were quick to commend the president for what they lauded as another example of his deal-making skills.
Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, told USA TODAY that critics spent the last few weeks paying too much attention to what the president was saying, rather than trusting him to deliver the best outcome for the country.
As for why it took Trump so long to rule out invading a U.S. ally, he said, "Ask the president."
Contributing: Reuters
Zachary Schermele is a congressional reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@usatoday.com. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @zachschermele.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Is Republicans' Greenland headache finally ending?
