What is the full text of the NATO Unity Protection Act and how would it be enforced?

1. What the bill actually says and where to read the full text

The bill’s printed text — titled the “NATO Unity Protection Act” or “NATO UP Act” in congressional documents — is available as the Senate file hosted on the Foreign Relations Committee site and linked in official press materials ^{[4] [6]}. Multiple press accounts and sponsor statements summarize the statute’s central prohibition: the use of Defense or State Department funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over sovereign territory of a NATO member state without that ally’s consent or NATO approval ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Those summaries mirror the bill’s stated congressional findings that NATO’s unified strength is critical to U.S. security and that such unilateral actions would violate the U.N. Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty ^{[4] [1]}.

2. The bill’s operative prohibitions, in plain language

Operationally the legislation forbids federal funds from being used to plan, support, or implement actions aimed at physically seizing or imposing control over a NATO ally’s territory, and it explicitly bars U.S. officers or employees from executing invasions or forcible takeover absent authorization ^{[5] [7]}. Sponsors framed the measure as a direct rebuke to public statements that raised the prospect of acquiring Greenland and as a way to “cement NATO unity” by making clear U.S. taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fracture the alliance ^{[6] [1]}.

3. The carve-out: preserving self‑defense and allied defense

The statute includes a narrowly worded carve-out: nothing in the Act is intended to limit the United States’ ability to defend itself or an ally against an armed attack or a credible threat of imminent attack — language designed to avoid unintentionally constraining Article 51 self‑defense rights or NATO’s collective defense posture ^{[8] [1]}. Sponsors stressed that the carve-out addresses concerns about limiting presidential authority in a genuine crisis while still blocking premeditated or unilateral territorial seizures ^[8].

4. How the bill would be enforced under Washington’s normal tools

Enforcement as described in the bill rests primarily on statutory funding prohibitions and the legal bar on officers taking prohibited actions — mechanisms that, in practice, make the prohibition an appropriations-based restraint and an administrative/departmental compliance obligation ^{[5] [3]}. Press materials and bill text acknowledge that barring funds is the principal tool for Congress to prevent executive action it opposes, and sponsors positioned the measure as a preemptive statutory limitation backed by the power of the purse ^{[6] [7]}. The bill’s text, which contains the precise funding and prohibitions language, is the controlling source for any legal enforcement questions ^[4].

5. Limits of what the reporting reveals and remaining questions

Reporting and the provided bill text links make clear the Act’s prohibitions and carve-out, but the sources do not supply every practical enforcement detail — for example, they do not enumerate civil penalties, criminal sanctions, or an administrative channel for adjudicating disputes over what constitutes an “imminent threat” under the carve-out; the full PDF text should be consulted for statutory remedies and definitions ^[4]. Additionally, while sponsors and press accounts emphasize political signaling to allies and deterrence of unilateral action, whether the bill would change executive decision-making in a fast-moving crisis is a matter of legal interpretation and operational practice not resolved in the summaries ^{[6] [8]}.