On ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky made a striking statement about the war powers resolution he and several other GOP senators backed to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to conduct further military strikes on Venezuela. Paul said the debate wasn’t just about Venezuela — it was about Greenland and other potential U.S. military actions abroad.
Host Martha Raddatz pressed Paul on his comments warning against a possible U.S. military takeover of Greenland, noting that White House officials had not ruled out “options” involving force. Paul said he hopes such an invasion would never happen, but made a broader point: threatening military action as a diplomatic tactic is counterproductive. He argued that if the goal is to persuade another nation or territory to cooperate with the United States, haranguing residents or menacing them with force will only harden opposition.
Paul used the example of Greenland — a semi‑autonomous territory of Denmark that the U.S. has discussed acquiring — to illustrate his point about war powers. He said that if America wants to seek diplomatic gains, it should not do so by threatening Marines or military occupation, because such rhetoric alienates people and undermines peaceful negotiation.
He tied that position back to the war powers resolution aimed at Venezuela, saying the broader debate is about whether the American people and their representatives in Congress should decide when the nation goes to war. Paul said this issue extends beyond one country to include how the United States interacts with other nations and territories, including Colombia, Cuba, and Greenland.
Paul has been vocal about his constitutional concerns, arguing that Congress — not the White House — should authorize military engagements. He has said he has “no love for Maduro,” but that constitutional limits matter regardless of the target. His views reflect a faction in the Senate pushing back against unilateral executive action on military force.
Paul also suggested that threats or saber‑rattling toward other countries or territories may have the opposite of the intended effect, making those places less inclined to work with the United States.
