What actions have the Senate taken to block U.S. military or funding moves against NATO territories including Greenland, and what were the vote totals?

1. What Congress proposed: a statutory firewall around NATO territory

Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D‑NH) and Lisa Murkowski (R‑AK) introduced the NATO Unity Protection Act, a bill that would explicitly prohibit the Department of Defense from using congressional funds to blockade, occupy, annex, conduct military operations against, or otherwise assert control over the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that state’s authorization or the approval of NATO’s North Atlantic Council, and would bar the State Department from using funds to develop or implement plans for such actions ^{[1] [6] [2]}.

2. Why senators acted: Greenland rhetoric and alliance risk

Sponsors and other senators framed the legislation as a direct response to White House rhetoric suggesting a U.S. acquisition or even use of force to take Greenland — an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark — warning that any U.S. action to seize a NATO territory would “incinerate” alliances, undermine NATO cohesion, and hand strategic advantage to adversaries like Russia and China ^{[3] [7] [8]}. Murkowski and Shaheen emphasized that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not fund actions that would fracture NATO or violate treaty commitments ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Senate rhetoric and floor rebukes: bipartisan pushback

Beyond the statutory draft, high‑profile Senate leaders publicly rebuked the notion of using force against a NATO territory; Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell delivered a sharp floor condemnation of seizing Greenland by force as a policy that would damage NATO and U.S. national security ^[3]. Congressional aides and reporters described the bill as one of the sharpest legislative rebukes to date to administration statements on Greenland ^[8].

4. Voting outcomes reported so far: a related war‑powers motion, not the NATO bill

The reporting includes a Senate procedural vote — 52 to 47 — to move forward on a separate war‑powers resolution that sought to limit the president’s ability to undertake further military actions in Venezuela; multiple outlets reported that five Republicans joined Democrats on that procedural motion ^[4]. However, AP reporting said the Senate later sidelined the war‑powers resolution, and none of the provided stories show a final Senate roll call passage of the NATO Unity Protection Act itself ^{[5] [4]}.

5. What the record does and does not show

Available reporting documents the bill’s introduction, its sponsors and its statutory language to block Defense and State Department funding for forcible actions against NATO territories, and it records robust bipartisan floor criticism of any attempt to seize Greenland ^{[1] [2] [3]}. What the sources do not provide is a recorded final Senate vote on the NATO Unity Protection Act — there is no sourced article among the provided materials claiming the bill passed the full Senate or giving vote totals for that bill’s final disposition ^{[2] [9] [10]}.

6. Competing dynamics and political context

Reporting shows lawmakers moved quickly because the administration’s statements raised alarm in European capitals and among NATO partners; at the same time, other lawmakers and allied officials pursued diplomatic engagement with Denmark and Greenland to calm tensions, and some Republicans publicly defected from the administration line, producing the bipartisan introduction ^{[7] [11] [3]}. Analysts also point to existing statutes and treaty‑related procedural requirements that could constrain unilateral executive moves against NATO commitments, a legal backstop invoked in expert commentary ^[12].