The film ‘Melania,’ a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, made nearly $8 million on its opening weekend, making it the highest-grossing documentary in a decade. It’s a huge win for the first lady and a crushing defeat for those rooting against her.
The director of ‘Melania,’ Brett Ratner, has previously helmed Hollywood blockbusters such as ‘Rush Hour’ and ‘X-Men: The Last Stand.’ The fact that Ratner is already an established brand in Hollywood is noteworthy. During the first Trump term, it would have been unlikely that a Hollywood director would take a chance on a documentary about Melania Trump. Ratner still took a risk making the film, because Hollywood is traditionally lockstep on politics and quick to cut off anyone who steps outside the line. It’s easier to make a film like this in 2026 than it was in 2017, but only marginally so.
The film is a soft-focus look at Melania Trump’s life as first lady, offering a glossy, feel-good glance into what people normally don’t get to see inside the private first lady’s life. Still, it wouldn’t have mattered what was in the film — the media would have hated it anyway.
The reviews in the mainstream press aren’t so much scathing as personal. Variety called the film a ‘cheeseball infomercial of staggering inertia,’ while The Guardian noted it was ‘dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing’ and ‘unredeemable.’
In the film, it’s true we see Melania in her beautiful outfits and flawless makeup, but we also see her as the woman behind the man.
In one scene in the film, Melania advises the president to include the word ‘unifier’ in his inaugural speech. On Jan. 20, as he said the words, ‘My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier,’ the president turned around to look at his wife. Of course, Melania wants her husband to be both a peacemaker and a unifier. She is rooting for him to succeed because it helps us all. A vicious media refuses to concede that she may want what is best for the country.
The film portrays a marriage where the first lady cares about her husband, worrying about his security on Inauguration Day and expressing relief when festivities are moved indoors. This portrayal flies in the face of the frequent commentary claiming the marriage is in name only. Why would the first lady care about her husband’s safety if she’s only in the union for glory or money? The New York Times counted how many days Melania has spent in the White House during this term, and Trump biographer Michael Wolff has claimed, without evidence, that they are separated. This film answers those accusations and rumors directly, in Melania’s own words.
In a 2018 interview with ABC, Melania was asked about her marriage and said, ‘I know people like to speculate and media like to speculate about our marriage. It’s not always pleasant, of course. But I know what is right and what is wrong and what is true or not true.’
She does, and she shows it in this film.
On the review site Rotten Tomatoes, the film ‘Melania’ is setting another kind of record: the largest discrepancy between the scores of film reviewers and filmgoers in the site’s history. It makes sense, since most of the reviewers went into the film with a rating in mind, whether or not they actually enjoyed the movie. The people who spent their money to go watch their first lady on the screen were going to be more honest, even if some were swayed by their enthusiasm for their president.
The media has three more years of the Trump administration and Melania Trump. They can stop having outbursts about the first lady and give her a fair hearing — something more than half the country would commend. Or they can continue to descend into irrelevance, as everyone knows even their panning of a film will be political. The choice is theirs.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that some cartel drug traffickers operating in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility have halted narcotics activity following recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean.
‘WINNING: Some top cartel drug-traffickers in the @SOUTHCOM AOR have decided to cease all narcotics operations INDEFINITELY due to recent (highly effective) kinetic strikes in the Caribbean,’ Hegsth wrote in a post on X.
Hegseth credited President Donald Trump with directing the military actions, calling the effort a lifesaving deterrent.
‘This is deterrence through strength. @POTUS is SAVING American lives,’ he wrote.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina praised the military action, writing on X, ‘Well done @SecWar and to all under your command. We must continue to verify and monitor. We can’t trust drug cartels.’
The Trump administration has been pursuing a policy of conducting deadly attacks against vessels of alleged ‘narco-terrorists.’
SOUTHCOM announced a strike that killed two on Thursday.
‘On Feb. 5, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Two narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No U.S. military forces were harmed,’ Southern Command noted in a post on X.
Towards the end of last year, Pope Leo XIV released his first Apostolic Exhortation, titled Dilexi Te (Latin for “I have loved you”). Many of the major themes of this exhortation closely carried over from the themes developed by Francis in his papacy.
Included in this is a specific ethical focus on economic actions and economic systems. The exhortation spans nearly 20,000 words, covers significant ground, and maintains a central focus on God’s love for the poor. The pope argues that the dignity of the poor is central both in scripture and in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
I agree with much of what Leo has to say throughout the exhortation, so I will focus most of my comments on the area where I would differ most sharply from him — on the economic system.
Paragraph 92 in particular addresses economic policy. Leo says:
We must continue, then, to denounce the “dictatorship of an economy that kills,” and to recognize that “while the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is being born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.” There is no shortage of theories attempting to justify the present state of affairs or to explain that economic thinking requires us to wait for invisible market forces to resolve everything. Nevertheless, the dignity of every human person must be respected today, not tomorrow, and the extreme poverty of all those to whom this dignity is denied should constantly weigh upon our consciences.
When reading this, I felt mostly surprised by the characterization of our current situation. A significant chunk of this involves a quote from Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium, wherein he claims inequality has bred ideologies that defend absolute autonomy of the marketplace against state regulation.
The difficulty I find here is that, insofar as these ideologies have been bred (which I’m unsure of), they appear not to have been very successful. Regulation and regulatory agencies continue to outpace market freedom in the West. While measuring this isn’t easy, we have some indications. The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Report shows the current economic freedom score of the US is 8.1 out of 10. This is the fifth-lowest score since The Fraser Institute started keeping annual data in 2000.
Another indicator is that government spending is 36.3 percent of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund. Excluding outlier events like World War II and the Great Depression, this is a higher level than nearly any time in American history. How could we say the government’s “right” to exercise control over markets is too limited at a time when it commands a larger share of resources than at any time in the country’s history?
The pope isn’t writing only about America, but many of the notable trends in America are also unfolding elsewhere. Europe’s regulatory ramp-up has been even more pronounced with the exhaustive bureaucratic standards that permeate the EU.
What about outside the West? Well, over the decades, economic freedom has tended to increase throughout the developing world, and importantly, increasing economic freedom has corresponded with a rise in the standard of living. Economically free countries tend to be richer and healthier than economically unfree countries.
Does the Invisible Hand Fix Everything?
The exhortation seems to anticipate this kind of response, saying, “there is no shortage of theories attempting to justify the present state of affairs or to explain that economic thinking requires us to wait for invisible market forces to resolve everything.”
My difficulty with this statement is that I’m unsure of anybody who argues that we are required to wait for invisible market forces to resolve everything. Champions of free markets tend to be very open about the fact that some problems are not solved by the market, and defer to the importance of individual responsibility, private charity, and formal and informal institutions to handle some problems.
This section seems to rebuff the belief that “the invisible hand” is the only way for things to get better. But this has never been claimed by anyone. Rather, supporters of markets argue that the invisible hand is a solution to some significant problems, and we inhibit this force at the peril of the poor. Claiming descriptively that the market is important for helping people escape poverty is far from identical to claiming that no one should be allowed to help anyone in any other manner.
We could imagine a society where the cultural bias is to believe only impersonal market forces should solve problems, but I think it would be mistaken to believe that our society has that bias. Rather if we have a bias, it is that any time there is a problem, it demands a top-down, political solution.
On a similar note, the pope argues, “At times, pseudo-scientific data are invoked to support the claim that a free market economy will automatically solve the problem of poverty.” I’m not sure what data he’s referring to, but I think it’s reasonable to argue that, at times, some economists, focused on the mere models of economics, have put the “automatic equilibrium adjustment” of the market in the foreground.
Many defenders of economics have, however, labored to demonstrate that the process is not automatic, but rather, is the result of individuals endowed with creativity, opportunity, and grit attempting to add value in previously unforeseen ways. On this, consider FA Hayek’s piece The Meaning of Competition.
Perhaps the “automatic” aspect bothers some people, as economists assert that markets can improve the lot of the poor regardless of the intention of the market participants. While we would certainly prefer people to want to improve the lot of the poor, I see it as a Common Grace that there could be a system that does not depend on that intentionally.
Importantly, markets do not require good intentions, but do not prevent them, and, I’d argue, the humanizing aspects of markets even encourage good intentions.
The Dignity of the Least of These
Pope Leo continues by arguing that the current economic system emphasizes self-reliance and success, and asks based on this:
Does this mean that the less gifted are not human beings? Or that the weak do not have the same dignity as ourselves? Are those born with fewer opportunities of lesser value as human beings? Should they limit themselves merely to surviving?
In this, I have no problem agreeing with the pope. I don’t believe a person’s dignity is contingent on their ability. If we accept this, though, the necessary next step is to ask how do we best ensure the dignity of the poor? A state, even one charged with the upholding of the common good, may be constrained by incomplete knowledge or perverse incentives such that its intervention will only harm the dignity of the poor more.
While it is unwise to outsource responsibilities to impersonal invisible forces and hope improvement trickles down, the same is true of relying on impersonal central forces.
To Leo’s credit, he seems to recognize this issue as well, though it seems to be more in the background. He argues, citing Francis, that welfare projects are, at best, provisional responses until deeper structural issues are resolved. He also acknowledges that solutions do not necessarily come from above:
One structural issue that cannot realistically be resolved from above and needs to be addressed as quickly as possible has to do with the locations, neighborhoods, homes and cities where the poor live and spend their time.
He echoes this sentiment later and critiques those who say, “ it is the government’s job to care for them, or that it would be better not to lift them out of their poverty but simply to teach them to work.”
Here, I think we find the key to Leo’s argument and my central area of agreement. Pope Leo argues that our responsibility to care for the poor cannot be simply outsourced to some external process (whether government, market, spiritual or otherwise).
While I tend to think the exhortation overstates the zeal of defenders of free markets and the extent to which we live in a world dominated by markets (rather than regulation), the message that moral responsibility for the poor cannot be outsourced to “someone else” is a valuable one.
Prediction markets seem to be everywhere these days. Now you can bet not only on the outcomes of sporting events, but also elections, wars, and natural disasters. Yet many people react to these markets with disgust. For instance, in a recent article in Jacobin, political commentator David Moscrop calls them “demented” and “grotesque.”
The main moral objection to prediction markets seems to be that it’s wrong to profit from someone’s misfortune. And intuitively there does seem to be something immoral about raking in thousands of dollars because you correctly predicted that a hurricane would hit a particular city or a particular war would break out, resulting in tremendous amounts of suffering. As Moscrop puts it, “Bettors will hold financial stakes in particular outcomes, including some of the most heinous events imaginable. It’s a fundamentally cynical and dehumanizing turn.” But as natural as the gut-level unease with prediction markets is, we shouldn’t trust it. Prediction markets are both useful and morally benign.
Prediction markets are useful precisely because they incentivize accurate forecasting. The prospect of making or losing money gives participants a strong reason to seek out new information and to process that information in an unbiased way. Think about sports betting. When you don’t have any money on the line, you probably indulge in wishful thinking that your favorite team is going to win this week, even though they’re 14 point underdogs. But if you suddenly stood to lose $1,000 if you turn out to be wrong, you’ll quickly start to think more rationally about the team’s chances.
In short, prediction markets tend to deliver accurate forecasts for the simple reason that they reward accuracy and punish inaccuracy. And at the risk of making an obvious point, accurate forecasts are useful because people plan their lives around expectations about what the future holds. For instance, if you live in an area where a hurricane will hit or a war will start, that’s important information for you to know. It could quite literally be lifesaving.
This point also helps explain why you shouldn’t accept the objection that prediction markets are morally bad because they enable people to profit from catastrophes. As the ethicists Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski have noted, many people routinely make money by accurately predicting bad things will happen without the use of prediction markets, and no one finds them immoral. Meteorologists make money forecasting hurricanes, epidemiologists make money forecasting disease outbreaks, political analysts make money forecasting electoral outcomes and wars, and so on.
The reason why no one thinks that these forecasters are doing something morally wrong is because, as already mentioned, accurately predicting bad events is actually beneficial; accurate predictions of bad events help people prepare for the bad events. (This should go without saying, but the fact that someone earns money by being right about something bad happening doesn’t mean they caused it or wanted it to happen.) Maybe the action of the bettor feels different than the action of the meteorologist, but morally, it’s the same. Someone who correctly predicts hurricanes and profits by getting a job with the Weather Channel “makes money from a catastrophe” just as much as someone who correctly predicts hurricanes and profits by placing bets on Kalshi.
You might worry that prediction markets incentivize what is in effect insider trading—they reward people for acting on information others don’t have. But that’s a feature, not a bug. If you see someone place a huge bet on an outcome that seems highly unlikely, that suggests that the outcome is more likely than you thought; maybe someone has inside information that makes them confident it’s going to happen. You don’t have to act on this signal, of course, but at least you have it in case you want to.
Critics of prediction markets also overlook the possibility that the money bettors earn can be used to mitigate the harms of the very disasters they predict. Suppose someone correctly predicts that a hurricane will make landfall and profits from a prediction market as a result. They now have additional resources that can be used to mitigate the suffering caused by the hurricane. They can donate to emergency relief, help fund rebuilding efforts, support local clinics, or contribute to flood mitigation projects. So if you’re concerned that a catastrophe is likely to occur, making an accurate prediction and allocating your winnings to help those harmed by the catastrophe is far more productive than simply watching it unfold.
Lastly, consider the objection that using prediction markets isn’t immoral, but self-destructive. These markets allow people to make risky bets that they might lose and, in turn, put them in serious financial straits.
Note, though, that it doesn’t follow from the fact that prediction markets enable people to take unwise financial risks that government officials should ban them. Suppose your neighbor asks you to make a large investment in her startup producing perpetual motion machines. That investment would be an unwise financial risk to say the least. Nevertheless, government officials shouldn’t intervene because you have the right to take that risk. It’s your money after all.
Prediction markets don’t cause or celebrate disasters, nor do they force people to gamble recklessly. Instead, they allow people to test their predictions in a system that rewards them for being right and penalizes them for being wrong. The result is accurate information that others can use to help plan their lives. If anything, that’s a positive moral good.
Anna Serin of the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE) and Eduardo Carmona of the National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX) discuss the CSE’s recent acquisition of the NSX, outlining what it means for both companies and investors.
‘What we’re hoping to create, and where we think the opportunity lies in Australia, is creating the venture market a little bit like the CSE’s done (in Canada),’ Carmona explained.
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Iran seized two foreign oil tankers in the Persian Gulf Thursday, accusing them of smuggling fuel and detaining 15 foreign crew members ahead of high-stakes U.S.–Iran talks Friday in Oman.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy said it intercepted the two ships near Farsi Island, claiming they were carrying about 1 million liters of smuggled fuel, Reuters reported.
The crews, made up of 15 foreign nationals, were taken into custody and referred to Iran’s judicial authorities, according to Iranian state media.
The IRGC alleged the vessels were part of an organized fuel-smuggling network that had been operating in the region for several months.
Iranian officials said the ships were identified through intelligence monitoring and seized during coordinated naval operations in the Persian Gulf, a vital artery for global energy markets.
According to The Jerusalem Post, Iranian authorities framed the operation as a significant blow to illegal fuel trafficking, though they did not immediately disclose the vessels’ nationalities or destinations.
The seizures come as Iranian rhetoric toward the U.S. has grown hostile.
Ezzatollah Zarghami, a former Iranian minister and ex–state broadcaster chief, issued a warning, threatening violence in the Strait of Hormuz, through which around one-fifth of the world’s oil and petroleum product consumption passes.
‘I am sure that the Strait of Hormuz will be the place of massacre and hell for the U.S.,’ Zarghami said Thursday.
‘Iran will show that the Strait of Hormuz has historically belonged to Iran. The only thing the Americans can think of is playing with their vessels and moving them from one place to another.’
Zarghami later repeated the threat, calling the Strait a potential ‘killing field’ for American forces and signaling Iran’s willingness to escalate amid mounting regional pressure.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are scheduled to meet Iranian officials in Oman Friday.
The pair are traveling from Abu Dhabi after two days of talks related to Russia and Ukraine.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Thursday that Friday’s talks were still on, stating ‘diplomacy is always [Trump’s] first option.’
For investors who want to gain exposure to artificial intelligence stocks, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are a popular avenue, because AI ETFs allow investors exposure to the overall market rather than individual AI stocks.
AI investing has exploded in popularity in recent years, particularly with the proliferation and advancement of generative AI technology. Today, many of the world’s largest tech stocks are focused on increasing their AI capabilities, or developing and supplying the hardware and technology needed to support the industry.
However, the sector has a long history. The phrase ‘artificial intelligence’ has been around since 1955, when it was used to describe a new computer science subdiscipline. Today, we use AI to describe simulated intelligence in machines. In other words, machines with AI are capable of simulating thinking like people and mimicking their actions.
As applications for AI rapidly expand, it’s clear that this market isn’t going away anytime soon.
1. Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF (NASDAQ:AIQ)
Assets under management: US$7.97 billion
The Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF is passively managed, tracking the Indxx Artificial Intelligence & Big Data Index. The Global X fund, which was established in May 2018, has an expense ratio of 0.68 percent.
‘AIQ is passively managed to invest in developed market companies that are involved in the use of artificial intelligence to analyze big data, whether for their own operations, as a service to other companies, or through the production of related hardware,’ according to ETF.com.
The Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF’s 87 holdings include Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930), Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Micron Technology (NASDAQ:MU).
2. Defiance Quantum ETF (NASDAQ:QTUM)
Assets under management: US$3.67 billion
The Defiance Quantum ETF launched in September 2018. It tracks an index composed of 84 companies that derive at least half of their annual revenues from quantum computing and machine learning technology development activities.
The fund has the lowest expense ratio of the five AI funds on this list at 0.4 percent.
Some of the ETF’s top holdings include Quantum Emotion (TSX:QNC), Micron Technology and MKS (NASDAQ:MKSI).
3. Dan IVES Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (ARCA:IVES)
Assets under management: US$1.04 billion
The newest addition to this list, the Dan Ives Wedbush AI Revolution ETF launched on June 4, 2025, as Wedbush Fund’s inaugural ETF. The ETF’s holdings are based on the research of Dan Ives, Wedbush’s Global Head of Technology Research, and on the IVES AI 30 list, which is updated on a quarterly basis. It has an expense ratio of 0.75 percent.
The Dan Ives Wedbush AI Revolution ETF has 32 holdings comprising mostly large-cap tech stocks based in North America. Its top holdings include Micron Technology, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (NYSE:TSM) and NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA).
4. Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF (ARCA:CHAT)
Assets under management: US$1.036 billion
The Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF launched on May 13, 2023, and focuses on companies that will benefit from the growth of generative AI. Companies must derive 50 percent of their revenue from generative AI or tech to qualify for its portfolio.
This AI ETF is actively managed and does not track an index. It has an expense ratio of 0.75 percent.
The ETF has 49 holdings, with 98 percent being large-cap companies. Its top holdings include Alphabet, NVIDIA and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), and it offers exposure to North American and Asian tech firms.
5. Invesco AI and Next Gen Software ETF (ARCA:IGPT)
Assets under management: US$715.8 million
The last AI ETF on this list is the Invesco AI and Next Gen Software ETF. It is the longest running compared to the other ETFs on this list, having launched in June 2005. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.58 percent.
It is based on the STOXX World AC NexGen Software Development Index and tracks the performance of companies that derive a direct revenue from technologies or products that contribute to future software development.
The Invesco AI and Next Gen Software ETF’s 100 holdings include Micron Technology, Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) and Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD).
Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
LaFleur Minerals Inc. (CSE: LFLR,OTC:LFLRF) (FSE: 3WK0) (‘LaFleur Minerals’ or the ‘Company’ or ‘Issuer’) is pleased to announce that it has granted incentive stock options (‘Options’) to management and consultants of the Company to acquire an aggregate of 1,000,000 common shares at $0.50 per share, for a period of three years. These Options have been granted in accordance with the Company’s stock option plan.
About LaFleur Minerals Inc.
LaFleur Minerals Inc. (CSE: LFLR,OTC:LFLRF) (OTCQB: LFLRF) (FSE: 3WK0) is focused on the development of district-scale gold projects in the Abitibi Gold Belt near Val-d’Or, Québec. Our mission is to advance mining projects with a laser focus on our resource-stage Swanson Gold Project and the Beacon Gold Mill, which have significant potential to deliver long-term value. The Swanson Gold Project is approximately 16,600 hectares (166 km2) in size and includes several prospects rich in gold and critical metals previously held by Monarch Mining, Abcourt Mines, and Globex Mining. LaFleur has recently consolidated a large land package along a major structural break that hosts the Swanson, Bartec, and Jolin gold deposits and several other showings which make up the Swanson Gold Project. The Swanson Gold Project is easily accessible by road with a rail line running through the property allowing direct access to several nearby gold mills, further enhancing its development potential. LaFleur Minerals’ fully-refurbished and permitted Beacon Gold Mill is capable of processing over 750 tonnes per day and is being considered for processing mineralized material at Swanson and for custom milling operations for other nearby gold projects.
ON BEHALF OF LaFleur Minerals INC. Paul Ténière, M.Sc., P.Geo. Chief Executive Officer E: info@lafleurminerals.com LaFleur Minerals Inc. 1500-1055 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6E 4N7
Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.
Cautionary Statement Regarding ‘Forward-Looking’ Information
This news release includes certain statements that may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. All statements in this new release, other than statements of historical facts, that address events or developments that the Company expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words ‘expects’, ‘plans’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘projects’, ‘potential’ and similar expressions, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ occur. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, without limitation, statements related to the use of proceeds from the Offering. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/282966
President Donald Trump has warned that the U.S. could use military force to secure the Diego Garcia air base in the Chagos Islands if any future deal threatens access to the joint U.S.-U.K. installation.
Trump made the comments Thursday in a Truth Social post while also signaling his willingness to move past tensions with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer after what he described as ‘very productive discussions’ about the Indian Ocean base.
Emphasizing the base’s strategic importance, Trump said the role of Diego Garcia was essential to U.S. national security.
‘It is the site of a major U.S. military base, strategically situated in the middle of the Indian Ocean and, therefore, of great importance to the national security of the United States,’ Trump wrote.
Trump also acknowledged that the U.K. struck what he called ‘the best deal he could make’ under a controversial agreement to transfer sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius while leasing Diego Garcia back for at least 99 years.
‘However, if the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers U.S. operations and forces at our base, I retain the right to militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia,’ Trump warned.
‘Let it be known that I will never allow our presence on a base as important as this to ever be undermined or threatened by fake claims or environmental nonsense.’
The comments marked a slight shift in tone from Trump, who in January criticized the U.K.-Mauritius deal as an ‘act of great stupidity’ and an ‘act of total weakness,’ accusing Britain of surrendering a critical military asset.
Diego Garcia serves as a hub for long-range bombers, logistics, intelligence collection and military communications across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and Africa, hosting around 2,500 U.S. and military and civilian personnel.
The island base has been used for long-range U.S. operations such as in Afghanistan and in Yemen.
According to Reuters, Downing Street had confirmed Trump and Starmer discussed Diego Garcia during a recent call and agreed to safeguard the base’s continued operation.
‘Turning to Diego Garcia, and the deal the U.K. has secured to maintain control of the U.S.-U.K. military base to protect national security, the leaders recognized its strategic importance,’ a No. 10 spokeswoman said.
‘The leaders agreed their governments would continue working closely to guarantee the future operation of the base and speak again soon.’
Under the agreement, British taxpayers are projected to pay roughly £35 billion [$47 billion] over the next century, including annual payments of about £160 million [$216 million] to Mauritius, according to public estimates.
Britain has also agreed to approximately £3 billion [$4 billion] in compensation over the life of the deal, with an option to extend the lease for an additional 50 years.
The agreement has also drawn criticism from Britain’s Conservative Party, which argues the deal weakens the U.K.’s strategic position and risks undermining long-standing security ties with the U.S.
Mauritius has said its sovereignty over the islands is ‘unequivocally recognized’ under international law and has called for swift implementation of the agreement.
As previously reported by Fox News Digital, a Downing Street spokesperson also said in January the U.K. is continuing efforts to ‘allay any concerns’ in Washington.
‘We will continue to engage with the U.S. on this important matter and the importance of the deal to secure U.S. and U.K. interests,’ the spokesperson said.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and Downing Street for comment.
Rapid Critical Metals (RCM:AU) has announced Latest Intercepts Confirm Continuity Across Drill Program