Full Text of the “Big Beautiful Ugly Bill”

Note on this PDF:
This version of the “Big Ugly Bill” is identical in content to the official published text—no words have been added, removed, or altered. The only changes are:

1. Replaced the original table of contents with one that includes accurate page numbers.
2. Made each TOC entry clickable so you jump directly to that section.
3. Added a “Return to Top” button at the bottom of every page for easy navigation.

If you’d like the unmodified, original PDF, you can download it here:
Congress.gov — H.R.1 Text (119th Congress)

🚨Greenland Invasion Concerns Between the Lines🚨

This is just one of the red flags within the document below:

Beginning on page 698 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (FOUND BELOW), a series of provisions under the section
SEC. 100001. COAST GUARD ASSETS NECESSARY TO SECURE NORTHERN STRATEGIC INTERESTS raise serious red flags when analyzed alongside Donald Trump’s public interest in acquiring or asserting control over Greenland.

🔍 Deep Dive Into Textual Evidence

1. Strategic Military Investments in Arctic Capabilities The bill authorizes:

   “…appropriations for the expansion of Arctic-capable icebreaker fleets, cold-weather military housing, extended-range unmanned aerial systems, amphibious landing support vehicles, and high-latitude airstrip refurbishments…” These align suspiciously well with Greenland’s geography and climate, suggesting logistical preparation for Arctic theater operations.

2. Deployment Infrastructure Funds are set aside for:

   “…establishment of forward-operating bases in the northern hemisphere to support rapid deployment and joint force exercises.” While Greenland is never directly named, the phrasing echoes the military footprint needed to operate in or near the Danish autonomous territory.

3. Hybrid Annexation Posture According to independent analysis, the U.S. has been gradually shifting toward a hybrid annexation strategy involving economic leverage, infrastructure buildup, and symbolic military presence [4].

4. Public Remarks and Geopolitical Interest Trump’s repeated declarations that he wanted to “buy” or “take” Greenland, combined with widespread media coverage of his administration’s unusual fixation with it [2], [5], set a disturbing context for the bill’s silent posturing.

5. Congressional Pushback In response, some members of Congress introduced legislation to explicitly prohibit the use of funds for invading or occupying Greenland, Canada, or Panama, confirming that such threats are taken seriously on Capitol Hill [1].

⚠️ Conclusion

While the One Big Beautiful Bill does not use the word “Greenland,” the specific military expenditures, the language of deployment, and the timing with Trump’s well-documented ambitions all point to a bill that intentionally sets the stage for a future power move in the Arctic. Whether framed as defense, annexation, or strategic realignment, the implications are clear: Greenland is a shadow target, and this bill allocates the tools to act on that ambition.

🌐 Sources

1. magaziner.house.gov - Magaziner Introduces Bill to Stop Trump from Invading Greenland, Canada, and Panama
2. newsweek.com - Greenland Denies Trump’s Claim That Officials Asked for US Visit
3. washingtonpost.com - Is Trump serious about Greenland? Here’s how to tell
4. militarnyi.com - USA Effectively Begins Implementing Hybrid Annexation
5. newrepublic.com - Here’s How Trump Plans to Take Control of Greenland
6. persuasion.community - They Really Just Might Invade Greenland