Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

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.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”


What the bill does

The No Invading Allies Act would prevent President Trump—or any president—from using military force upon Canada, Greenland, or Panama unless Congress approves.

The bill was introduced on March 6 by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI2).

Context

Canada and Greenland are both official NATO allies of the U.S., since Greenland is a territory of Denmark. (Though the island has been self-governing since 2009.)

Panama is not an official ally, since they’re neither part of NATO nor one of the official 19 “major non-NATO ally” nations. However, they’re something of an unofficial ally—the U.S. has gotten along well with the nation ever since Manuel Noriega’s military dictatorship was deposed in 1989 by a U.S. military intervention.

Trump has openly mused about annexing Greenland for military strategy in that corner of the world, annexing Panama over concerns that China is exerting too much control over the Panama Canal, and annexing Canada because he believes they’re too lax in controlling the flow of drugs over their U.S. border.

In a January press conference, asked whether he would rule out the possibility of military force to take over Greenland or Panama, the typically loquacious Trump answered with one word: “No.”

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked about the possibility of using military force on Greenland or Panama. His evasive non-answer caused Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) to reply: “That sounds to me like you would contemplate carrying out such an order.”

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that the legislative branch should exert more of a say over such a consequential and potentially fatal incursion.

“The American people do not want to take over other countries. Nobody voted in the election to take over Canada or Greenland,” Rep. Magaziner said in a House floor speech. “The president never talked about that during his campaign.”

“I urge my colleagues, whether you believe the president is serious about wanting to take over other countries or not, whether you take him at his word or not, whether you think he might involve us in unnecessary wars of conflict or not: let’s not leave it up to chance.”

What opponents say

Some opponents counter that Trump is just bluffing.

“The United States is not going to invade another country. That’s not who we are,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)  told NBC’s Meet the Press. Trump “is the president that kept American troops out of war. He is not looking to be able to go start a war, to go expand American troops.”

Other opponents may also counter that the Vietnam-era War Powers Act of 1973 already requires congressional approval to renew a president’s military action if it lasts at least 60 days. (Although the bill’s supporters contend that, when it comes to Canada or Panama or Greenland, such military action shouldn’t even last one day.)

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted nine Democratic cosponsors. While some congressional Republicans have expressed hesitancy or dismissal towards Trump’s threats of military force, none have actually signed onto this bill yet.

It awaits a potential vote in either the House Armed Services or Foreign Affairs Committee, both controlled by Republicans.

In the meantime, enjoy this recent viral symbolism-laden photo from wildlife photographer Mervyn Sequeira, depicting a Canadian goose scaring off an American bald eagle.

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: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump

Read More

Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

Protesters confront National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids on June 09, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

LOS ANGELES, CA - An estimated 700 U.S. Marines are being mobilized from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, approximately 140 miles east of Los Angeles, to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. This mobilization will position the troops closer to Los Angeles, where they may potentially work alongside National Guard units to protect federal resources and personnel, according to NBC News.

The latest figures from police, nearly 70 individuals were arrested over the weekend during protests. This total includes 29 people arrested on Saturday for failure to disperse and 21 individuals arrested on Sunday on charges ranging from attempted murder involving a Molotov cocktail to looting and failure to disperse, as reported by the LAPD.

Keep ReadingShow less
GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, makes up about 40% of revenue for Community Health Centers, which serve almost 32 million mostly low-income people nationwide.

Arlette/Adobe Stock

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

People who depend on Community Health Centers and rural hospitals could have trouble finding care if Medicaid cuts just approved by the U.S. House are signed into law.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 8 million people nationwide could lose coverage over the next decade, including more than 3 million in California.

Lizette Escobedo, vice president of government relations and civic engagement at AltaMed Health Services in Los Angeles, said the costs to treat a flood of uninsured patients would overwhelm community clinics and small town hospitals.

"If this bill were to be implemented over the next 10 years, some federally qualified health centers and hospitals especially in the rural areas would probably have to close their doors," Escobedo projected.

Supporters of the bill said the savings are needed to fund other administration priorities, including President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The bill would also tighten work requirements for Medicaid coverage and force people to reapply every six months instead of annually. And it would slash tens of billions in federal funding to states like California allowing health coverage for undocumented people.

Joe Dunn, chief policy officer for the National Association of Community Health Centers, called the proposed cuts counterproductive, in terms of keeping people healthy and keeping costs down.

"Health centers actually save money in the long run, because it reduces utilization of emergency departments and other kind of higher-cost settings, like inpatient hospitalization," Dunn explained.

The bill is now in the U.S. Senate.

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.

Keep ReadingShow less
Selective Sympathy: America’s Racial Double Standard on South African Asylum

Unrecognizable person clinging to a fence deprived of freedom

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Selective Sympathy: America’s Racial Double Standard on South African Asylum

It's a peculiar feeling to see the United States, a nation built on the bones of the oppressed, suddenly rebrand itself as a sanctuary for the persecuted as long as those seeking refuge are white. The current executive branch of the American government has managed to weaponize the language of human rights for its own geopolitical and racial ends— that is, selective, self-serving, misguided, and immoral.

The Trump administration is sullying the name of America, with barely a fig leaf of evidence, by trumpeting allegations of "genocide" against white South Africans. The chorus rises from right-wing newsrooms to the halls of Congress, fueled by viral videos and the breathless retelling of farm attacks, stripped of historical context or statistical rigor. White South Africans are an endangered species, so told, and America must fling open its doors, granting not just asylum but a fast track to citizenship—no questions asked.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Who Holds the Cards: The United States or China in Tariff Negotiations
A golden trump head stands before stacks of money.
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

Just the Facts: Who Holds the Cards: The United States or China in Tariff Negotiations

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What is the current status?

Keep ReadingShow less