Why Trump CAN'T order generals to attack Canada, Mexico, Panama and Greenland - Congress would never authorize use of force against them - it's just deflection from his problems and free advertising

To skip to any section, click on the column of horizontal lines to the left or skip to contents (for mobile)

I need to start by saying some things to help panicking readers. The rest of my readers may wish to skip this inro and the next section.

Graphical summary of the main points:

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

Q,. With your references to Greenland and the Panama Canal so forth can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion?

Trump: no ... you're talking about Panama and Greenland no I can't assure you on either of those two ... I'm not going to commit to that now it might be that you'll have to do something

…

Q. are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?

... no, economic force, because here's the problem with Canada so many friends up there

Just deflection from his own problems and attempts at intimidation.

But in reality Trump would NEVER get Congress permission to attack Greenland or Panama under the War Powers act.

Transcription from: Trump answers questions about Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, Gulf of Mexico

TRump_Greenland.png

Trump is not trying to start a war. He is just being intimidating. Maybe a visual image will help,

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

What Trump is doing - like deer clashing antlers.

The antlers have spikes on them and a deer could easily kill its opponent with a side swipe.

But they never do deliberately, sometimes harm througho accidents Insteady htey ritually lock antlers and push.

Trump's intimidation attempts of Canada, Greenland, Panama and Mexico are like this.
locking antlers2.png
Frame from video: Sparring Sambhar deer: clash of antlers!

First Trump is not a hawk

• A hawk favours starting new military conflicts or escalating existing ones.

• A dove favours negotiation and peaceful resolution.

Despite all his bluffs Trumps objective is always to bring the other side to the negotiating table not to start a war. So he is a dove rather than a hawk.

• He is going to try to end wars.

• He also wants to reduce the number of US soldiers serving overseas and gradually withdraw from other countries, like he did from Afghanistan and tried to do from Syria.

• He is not going to start wars.

• He IS going to bluff like he did in his first term with Kim Jong Un.
  - he bluffed "my button is bigger than your button" about nukes with Kim Jong Un. But then after the first summit he told reporters there is no way that the US could have attacked NK because Seoul would be devastated in a war.

  - background is Seoul capital of SK is within artillery range of the NK border (Seoul also has a Trump Hotel in it incidentally)
  - So he never meant it seriously but did it to intimidate Kim Jong Un.

On ending wars, Zelensky and others think there is a decent chance that Trump together with Zelensky and his European allies can bring Putin to the negotiating table and end the Ukraine war within 100 days.

See my:

Zelensky: war in Ukraine can end faster with Trump - can only negotiate from a position of strength - expects Trump to strengthen Ukraine - but by 1799 Logan act can’t discuss until he's president

What will help him do that is that

• Trump is not easily intimidated in the way Biden perhaps was.

But the flip side of not being easily intimidated is that

• he does also say things like this.

So he does all this to intimidate and deflect.

Contents:

• Short summary of why he isn’t serious about any of the three

• Trump is just doing a bit of free promotion of his objectives and deflecting from his problems

• Trump never said he would invade any of these countries and said clearly he would NOT invade Canada

• Trump can’t be serious about Canada - amongst other things would add 52 members of the House and 2 Senators that would caucus with Democrats on almost everything - and 54 electoral college votes for Democrats

• Trump is never really going to do this but he’d be stopped by Congress if he did

• One exception - president can order military force without authorization of Congress if the US, its territories, possessions or armed forces are attacked - but this would not apply

• Congress would never pass such an authorization - with the slim House majority and the Democrats could filibuster it in the Senate

• Contact me, more help etc.

Short summary of why he isn’t serious about any of the three

All of this is not worth thinking about. It's as unlikely as a cow jumping over the moon, won't happen.

For Canada, there is no way that Trump, a Republican would want to add an extra Democratic state with even the Conservatives to the left of Bernie Sanders in their politics and the same number of representatives as California!

Although the more right wing Canadian conservatives support deregulation and tax cuts just as Republicans do they support universal health care more extensive even than in California and support gun control far more so than the most liberal Democrat. They would surely caucus with Democrats.

There is no way that Trump wants 52 extra Bernie Sanders in the House and 2 extra Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

Canada won’t want it either for numerous reasons. Trump said he’d use economic force, this means tariffs etc. But there is no way that would work and as you see there is no way he even wants Canada as a 51st state.

For Greenland, the US has attempted to buy Greenland several times, first off when it bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 then again in 1946 offering $100 million and then again under Trump in 2019 and now again in 2024 - presumably it will try again under Trump but will fail See: Denmark United_States_relations#GreenlandYou sent

It will never try to attack it, that is a daft silly idea that nobody can take seriously.

Because of the UN Charter and also because it is in NATO and the US is required to defend it against attacks.

For Panama this is the most plausible since after all Bush did invade Panama but in very different circumstances. Amongst other things in the rationale, a US marine had been killed and Panama had declared war with the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama#U.S._rationale

The main objection to Geore HW Bush’s rationale is that there was plenty of time to consult with the Congress unless the intent was surprise to kill or capture Noriega but if that was the objective it's not clear it's one that is covered by the War Powers.

But in this case Panama hasn’t declared war on the US and nobody has been killed.

It would require Congress approval, as would all of those, because it wouldn’t be covered by the War Powers act even as gray area so he can’t do that either. No way Congress approves use of force against Panama just to try to reduce costs of shipping transit.

Trump is just doing a bit of free promotion of his objectives and deflecting from his problems

Trump is NOT being serious here. It is far simpler, he is just deflecting away from various things going wrong in his administration and trying to save the US money.

Remember, Trump is a media celebrity and one of the things he learnt from hosting "The Apprentice" is how to get attention. Most likely he is just doing all this to attract attention in a way that he prefers, and to deflect attention away from things that are going wrong

Trump has had a whole series of setbacks, the news was full of them, so he has plenty reason to deflect.

1. He got lots of criticism for his cabinet picks.

2. He is getting fed up of Musk who keeps saying silly things and most recently Musk has said that he must give green cards (residency permits) to anyone who gets a degree in the USA. Trump agreed but it ruffled the feathers of many of his party who want to reduce immigration

3. He didn't get the leader of the Senate he wanted, the Republicans refused his first choice.

4. His preferred leader of the House did get in but it was a very close thing, he could only afford one person to vote against and one person did vote against.

5. He is due to be sentenced as a felon 10 days before his inauguration (though he is trying to stop that).

The news is full of stories that put Trump in a bad light.

His usual response is to kick up a fuss that will take over the news for a few days so people forget about all that.

He also has secondary objectives.

With Canada

• a one-upmanship contest with Trudeau - some think may also have contributed to Trudeau’s resignation though he'd likely have resigned anyway.
  
  See Trump's trolling and tariffs sped up Trudeau's demise. How will Canada handle him now?

With Greenland

• to get Denmark to spend more on military defences in Greenland so that the US can spend less.

With Panama

• to pressure Panama to reduce transit fees for US ships.

With Mexico

• pressure on Mexico to take action from their side to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who try to cross to the US.

I don't think Trump is mad. I think he is just getting a bit of free advertising for his real priorities which are a bit different from what he claims he'll do.

Trump never said he would invade any of these countries and said clearly he would NOT invade Canada

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

Q,. With your references to Greenland and the Panama Canal so forth can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion?

Trump: no ... you're talking about Panama and Greenland no I can't assure you on either of those two ... I'm not going to commit to that now it might be that you'll have to do something

…

Q. are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?

... no, economic force, because here's the problem with Canada so many friends up there

Just deflection from his own problems and attempts at intimidation.

But in reality Trump would NEVER get Congress permission to attack Greenland or Panama under the War Powers act.

Transcription from: Trump answers questions about Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, Gulf of Mexico

TRump_Greenland.png

So he promised not to invade Canada.

But he is not going to invade ANYWHERE. He can't. A general would laugh at him if he ordered them to invade Greenland.

A general would likely say something like:

"are you out of your mind? Attacking a NATO country?

I'd better pretend I didn't hear this or you are in big trouble"

It would be a right mess. Under the NATO treaty, all of NATO apart from the US would have to defend Greenland.

US would also be required to contribute 12,000 US soldiers to the rapid response force to defend Greenland from the US.

This could only be resolved by expelling the US from NATO.

So it won't happen

Anyway, he needs authorization from Congress.

There is no way for the president to override Congress in that situation. He can if US soldiers are under attack from Greenland but that won't happen

Almost all a president’s power is granted to him by Congress. There are a few hings the president does have power to do directly from the US Constitution, such as pardon power.

But with everything else, Congress grants him power as it did under the War Powers act, and can withdraw that power..

38 voted against his explicit instructions on the debt limit.

And to start a war with Denmark is far more serious than that. His majority is so narrow in the House that he loses a bilil if 3 vote against from his own party.

Then authorization for military force can be stopped by Democrats alone in the Senate since 41 votes out of 100 are enough to stop it and there are 47 Democrat senators.

Trump can’t be serious about Canada - amongst other things would add 52 members of the House and 2 Senators that would caucus with Democrats on almost everything - and 54 electoral college votes for Democrats

There is no way Trump can really be serious about wanting Canada as an extra state

There is no way Canada can ever be part of the US. No way that Trump wants that either.

The conservatives in Canada do support deregulation and tax cuts.

But even the conservatives in Canada are way beyond the liberal left relative to the USA on almost all topics like health care, and gun control. To the left of Bernie Sanders.

1. has universal health care - similarly to the system in California but more comphrensive

2. has far stronger gun control than any US state.
   https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0838.htm

3. Strong support for action on climate change

4. adds 2 Democrat senators and 52 representatives, all or almost all Democrat and 54 electoral college votes for Democrats.
   [population same as Califoria which has 52 representatives]

5. Might also want to continue to recognize King Charles as sovereign. It’s the conservatives in Canada who are most keen on King Charles as sovereign.
   https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/mario-canseco-support-for-king-charles-wanes-as-canadians-republican-sentiment-grows-8461242

The Democrat party is also diverse with some with views similar to Republicans - but I would imagine most likely even the most right wing in Canada would identify more as Democrats than Republicans if they had to campaign on removing universal health care and giving everyone access to AR-15 auto-reloading semi-assault rifles and no Federally required gun licenses or registry.

Even Conservatives in Canada would caucus with the Democrats on universal health care, climate action, arms control, and many other topics

It is just intimidation.

Trump is never really going to do this but he’d be stopped by Congress if he did

It won't happen. He'd be stopped by Congress. Although Congress rarely declares war, it does have to authorize the president to use military force. For instance it authorized the Iraq war, the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, the gulf war and the Vietnam war.

It would certainly have to authorize any use of military force against Greenland, Mexico, Panama or Canada. There is no way Congress would do that.

The president has a lot of freedom in foreign policy but not to that level, to attack Greenland, Mexico, Panama or Canada.

HIGHLIGHTED TEXT ON GRAPHIC

The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean …Congress can … authorize the use of armed force for more limited operations short of a full-scale war

Congress has, on various occasions, enacted … authorizations for the use of military force, which permit the President to use United States military forces in pursuit of set objectives and within parameters defined by Congress

For example, Congress passed and the President signed into law statutory authorization during the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, post-September 11, 2001, invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11232

One exception - president can order military force without authorization of Congress if the US, its territories, possessions or armed forces are attacked - but this would not apply

The one exception here is that a president can order the military to act in an emergency without authorization from Congress. In:

a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The rules here are governed by the War Powers Resolution

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

• (1) a declaration of war,

• (2) specific statutory authorization, or

• (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

#Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

. War Powers Act

Congress put this legislation in place after Nixon unilaterally ordered military action in Laos and Cambodia. Nixon vetoed it and both House and :Senate overrode his veto so putting it into law (284 - 135 in the House, 75 - 18 in the Senate)

See War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia

There can be gray area cases for this resolution. But for Trump to attack Panama, Greenland, Canada or Mexico would not be gray area.

Congress would never pass such an authorization - with the slim House majority and the Democrats could filibuster it in the Senate

He has only a majority of 220 to 215 in the House. There is no way he gets 218 out of 220 Republicans to authorize an attack on Greenland.

The idea that all Republicans vote with him is nonsense. For instance 38 Republicans voted no to lifting the debt ceiling.

25 of those have never voted to raise the debt limit.

. Meet the 38 Republicans Who Defied Trump on the Spending and Debt Deal

There would surely be many more who would NEVER vote to invade Greenland violating both the UN Charter and the NATO treaty.

Then I'm pretty sure authorizations for use of force can be filibustered in the Senate as that derives from the Senator’s exercise of their right to debate at length.

QUOTE STARTS

The Senate’s published precedents do not suggest that a measure proposing to declare war or authorize the use of force, if considered outside the framework of the War Powers Resolution, would be immune from the potentially laborious process to which other bills and joint resolutions are subject (except those that benefit from special expedited procedures under rule-making statutes).

For example, a joint resolution declaring war or authorizing the use of force presumably would not be eligible for immediate floor consideration at the time it is introduced, and it presumably would be subject to possible delays resulting from the Senators’ exercise of their right to debate at length.

[That suggests it can be filibustered too]

See page 71 of https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31133#_Toc1460737

So he'd need Democrat votes as well.

It's simply impossible.

There are 435 in the House. He has a majority of only 220 to 215

100 in the senate. He has a majority of 53 to 47 but in the Senate almost all bills including authorization of force can be stopped by 41 votes against.

Also to attack Canada or Greenlandn is against the NATO treaty. The US would be expelled from NATO if it did this.

US generals would also refuse to attack a NATO country because they CAN and MUST refuse illegal orders. They would refuse to attack any country without authorization for use of force from Congress.

Also Trump can’t use his position as president to order the military to obey an illegal order to invade those four countries.

Trump can only appoint four star generals from one or two star generals. They have trained since a cadet to follow the US constitution. A four star general also has an entire team of lawyers to listen in on every call. No general would ever obey an illegal order to attack a country without authorization from Congress.

Also it’s the same all the way down to the officers and the soldiers. They all also have it drilled into them that they must never follow an unconstitutional order and if they do so knowingly they are themselves responsible for their illegal actions.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

All soldiers and officers will protect the US Constitution with their life and will NOT obey illegal orders.

All ranks are thoroughly versed in the Law of War.

To follow an illegal order is a war crime.

No matter who gives the order

A four star general will have NO HESITATION telling a general he can't obey.

President's choice must be at least 1 star alredy.

Generals are assisted by military lawyers.

A four star general has a team of lawyers on tap.

A president can ONLY appoint 1-star generals and above to command and ONLY withapproval of Senate.

. U.S. Army Ranks

General Milley in his retirement speech put it like this:

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

General Milley:

We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe. We don't take an oath to a religion. We don't take an oath to a King or a Queen or to a tyrant or a dictator and we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don't take an oath to an individual.

We take an oath to the constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America and we're willing to die to protect it.

Every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, guardsmen and coastguardsmen, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price. And we are not easily intimidated.

========

Every US soldier, officer and general takes an oath to the US Constitution above all. They have it drilled in from the start that they must only obey LEGAL orders.

And as soldiers they are willing to die to protect the US constitution and the rule of law.

Speech starts at 1:21:00 here, the quote starts at 1:35:20 U.S. Constitution at Center of Military Transfer of Responsibility Ceremony

This is that oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

. Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

This oath is set by Congress and is in: U.S.C. § 3331,

For more on this see:

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.

You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.