Republican lawmakers breathed a collective sigh of relief Wednesday after President Donald Trump said he wouldn’t use force to seize Greenland.

Trump’s surprise announcement removed the immediate threat of a military escalation that could have shattered the NATO alliance. It also offered a momentary reprieve for Republicans who risked either crossing the president or embracing an unpopular military intervention that could cost them in November.

Republicans instead discounted that Trump was ever serious about conquering the island, even as they appeared to support acquiring Greenland for national security reasons.

“All of us knew it was never on the table, but it’s very helpful that he said that,” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said in an interview. “We need to start talking about more reasonable pathways to having a better relationship with Greenland, ideally a territory one day.”

Speaker Mike Johnson pushed back on the idea that Trump was serious about taking over the Arctic island. “I don’t think that was ever his intent, and so I’m glad he clarified,” he said. “I’ve been speaking with him a lot along the way, and I don’t think anyone here in this building or at the White House ever expected that troop deployment to Greenland was a necessary option.”

Trump, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, insisted, “I don’t want to use force,” even as he bashed NATO allies for not selling Greenland to the U.S.

“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force.”

The president, in a Truth Social post hours later, called off a plan to impose tariffs on European nations and said he’d struck a “framework of a future deal” in a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Several top Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Senate Defense Appropriations chief Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had pushed back against Trump’s threats against Greenland — a rare rebuke that signaled just how seriously they took the situation.

But many Republicans still appeared to support the idea of acquiring Greenland through negotiations given its strategic Arctic location — or at least beefing up the U.S. military presence there.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the House panel that controls Pentagon spending, suggested the Trump administration could seek “a better agreement” with Denmark. He argued that only the U.S. would ever spend the money in Greenland needed to defend North America.

“We never were going to use force. Come on,” he said. “This isn’t Venezuela, for God’s sake.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally and vocal defense hawk, expressed support for “a lawful and fair process” to acquire the island. Trump “rightly removed the option of taking Greenland by force,” he said.

Polling data reveals the challenge Republicans face with Trump’s call for military action. GOP voters are overwhelmingly aligned with the president’s foreign policies and many support acquiring Greenland peacefully. But they draw a sharp line at troop deployments.

Around 64 percent of Republicans approve of buying Greenland, according to a new CBS poll, although only 30 percent of Americans overall agree. Eighty-six percent of voters overall and 70 percent of Republicans disapprove of taking the island by military force.

“Flexing America’s power is different from putting in American troops,” said Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Capturing [Venezuelan leader Nicolás] Maduro, Republicans absolutely love it. Should we put military troops there? Well, no.”

Republicans were unlikely to ride to Greenland’s rescue if it meant defying Trump, she said. More than 80 percent of House Republicans represent districts Trump won by double digits, and lawmakers have little incentive to break publicly with a president who backs primary challenges against his enemies.

The issue also gave Democrats a ready-made midterms attack line to reinforce their argument that Republicans are focused on distractions abroad and not voters’ pocketbook issues. “You can kind of hear the Democratic ads already: ‘Congressman so-and-so thinks it’s okay for our $700 billion dollars to go to Greenland instead of to hard-working American families,’” Walter said.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), one of the few vocal Republican opponents of Trump’s threats to Greenland, said he and many of his colleagues felt the president would do better to focus on the economy ahead of the midterms.

“Most of us think it was crazy, with a few exceptions,” Bacon said. “Most of us thought, behind shut doors, he should be bragging on the economy that’s growing at 4.3 percent, wages climbing faster than inflation for the first time in four or five years. But now we’re talking Greenland.”

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who represents one of the GOP’s most competitive swing districts, said Congress should step in if Trump moved toward military action. A member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, he plans to go to next month’s Munich Security Conference to try to repair relations with allies.

“We’re going to do our part to strengthen the alliance, to calm fears, to let them know we have their back and that we would never, ever allow that to happen,” he said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.