Since the United States announced intentions to intervene in Venezuela, the Trump administration has considered similar actions elsewhere, with a particular focus on Greenland, a NATO member and long-time U.S. partner. These considerations, largely communicated through unilateral executive actions, have prompted debate regarding Congress's ability to act as a check on presidential power, particularly with Trump in his final term.

The administration's interest in Greenland has manifested in various ways, including public statements and diplomatic overtures, according to CNN senior reporter Annie Grayer. These actions have raised concerns on Capitol Hill, with some members questioning the legal and strategic implications of such a move.

"There's a growing unease, even within the Republican party, about the president's approach to Greenland," Grayer said. "They're starting to ask, 'What are the limits of executive authority in foreign policy?'"

The debate centers on the extent of presidential power in foreign affairs versus Congress's constitutional authority to declare war, ratify treaties, and appropriate funds. Some legal scholars argue that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign policy, while others maintain that Congress must play a more active role, especially when considering actions that could impact international relations and national security.

Proponents of congressional oversight point to the potential economic and political consequences of pursuing action in Greenland without congressional approval. They argue that such a move could strain relations with key allies, including Denmark, which maintains sovereignty over Greenland.

Critics of congressional intervention argue that it could hamstring the president's ability to respond quickly to perceived threats or opportunities on the global stage. They maintain that the president needs flexibility to act decisively in foreign affairs, particularly in a rapidly changing world.

Currently, Congress is exploring various options to assert its authority, including introducing resolutions expressing disapproval of the administration's actions and holding hearings to examine the legal and strategic implications of pursuing action in Greenland. The extent to which Congress will be able to effectively check the president's power remains to be seen, but the issue has highlighted a growing tension between the executive and legislative branches on matters of foreign policy.