1. United States
2. Texas
3. Letter

I write as your constituent to express deep concern over recent rhetoric and policy discussions suggesting the United States might consider military action or an invasion of Greenland—territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and defended under NATO’s collective security framework. 🇩🇰🇺🇸 Greenland is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark and, through Denmark, a NATO member. Its defense and security are already shared within the Alliance, and its government has repeatedly stated it does not wish to be taken over by the United States. Danish and Greenlandic officials have publicly rejected any notion of U.S. annexation, emphasizing that defense should occur through NATO, not unilateral U.S. control. I urge you to use whatever influence your office has to oppose any U.S. military intervention against a NATO ally, for the following reasons: • Undermine NATO unity and credibility: An attack on Greenland would fundamentally break the principle of collective defense that binds the United States with its allies, potentially leading to the fracturing or collapse of NATO. European leaders have warned that forcing such a conflict could spell the end of the alliance. • Diplomatic isolation and loss of trust: Allies around the world would likely lose confidence in U.S. commitments, making future cooperation on global security, trade, climate, and defense significantly more difficult. • Legal and constitutional consequences: Military action against an ally would violate international law and NATO treaties, raising serious questions about the legality of commands ordering such force. • Escalation of global tensions: Such an unprecedented act could embolden rival powers, weaken deterrence, and increase the risk of broader geopolitical conflict. Respectfully, the United States should uphold the rule of law, honor longstanding alliances, and pursue diplomacy—not military confrontation with a partner and friend.