House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is calling for bipartisanship on a key vote that could lead to former President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facing criminal charges.

Comer will ask Democrats to join Republicans in teeing up House-wide votes on holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress on Wednesday, after both defied subpoenas to appear for his committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein.

‘The Committee does not take this action lightly. But subpoenas are not mere suggestions; they carry the force of law and require compliance,’ Comer will say, according to an excerpt obtained by Fox News Digital. ‘Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this Committee. They refused.’

Comer’s statement will also argue the committee ‘acted in good faith’ in trying to schedule the depositions but that ‘actions have consequences.’

‘We’ve offered flexibility on scheduling. The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance, marked by repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction,’ Comer will say. ‘Today, the Clintons must be held accountable for their actions. And Democrats must support these measures, or they will be exposed as hypocrites.’

The committee is meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday to mark up a pair of reports on holding the Clintons in contempt. 

If they pass — which they are expected to do, largely along party lines — it will pave the way for the full House to vote on whether to refer the Clintons to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution.

‘We must do what is necessary to uphold Congress’s investigative authority, which is imperative to the legislative process,’ Comer will say. ‘And we are doing so to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone, regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.’

A contempt of Congress conviction is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum fine of $100,000 and up to one year in jail.

Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, associates of President Donald Trump, were each found guilty of the charge after defying subpoenas sent by the now-defunct House select committee on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The Clintons were two of 10 people Comer subpoenaed over the summer as part of the Oversight Committee’s probe into Epstein. But despite the initial bipartisan push, the investigation has fallen into partisan infighting as both sides accuse the other of politicizing the probe at the expense of Epstein’s victims.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, accused Comer of hypocrisy in trying to hold the Clintons accountable while not pushing harder to enforce the subpoena aimed at forcing the DOJ to release all of its Epstein files, which it has not yet done.

‘I think it’s incredibly hypocritical for James Comer to go out and try to hold in contempt his political enemies while [Attorney General Pam Bondi] is actively breaking the law, and he refuses to hold her in contempt,’ Garcia told MS NOW last week.

Comer also issued a statement on Tuesday stating that he rejected an offer from Bill Clinton’s lawyer for himself and Garcia to sit down with the former president in New York, for an interview without an ‘official transcript.’

‘The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons’ unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions on Wednesday due to their continued defiance of lawful subpoenas,’ Comer said.

House Democrats are largely mum about whether they’ll help Republicans advance a pair of contempt resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday.

The House Oversight Committee is meeting at 10 a.m. to weigh a pair of reports on holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas in the panel’s Jeffrey Epstein probe. What’s likely to be hours of debate will be followed by votes on whether to tee up those reports as House-wide votes on resolutions referring the former first couple to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.

The resolutions are likely to advance, at least along party lines. But two Democrats on the committee who spoke with Fox News Digital on Tuesday were careful to avoid making concrete decisions before the pivotal votes.

‘Right now, we should all be focused on releasing the Epstein files,’ Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told Fox News Digital. ‘After the files are released, call in the Clintons, and they should testify, as should anyone. But it’s premature to be calling in people to testify when the files haven’t been released.’

Khanna, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., led a successful effort to force a vote on mandating that the DOJ release nearly all of its Epstein files. 

The DOJ has yet to produce more than a fraction of the documents, however, more than a month after the deadline set by Congress.

When asked directly how he would vote regarding the Clintons on Wednesday, Khanna said, ‘I would say that they need to come in after the files are released.’

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., a first-term member of the committee, told Fox News Digital when asked how he’ll vote, ‘We’ll see how they’re treating all of the other people who have not complied completely with the committee, because I think what they’ve started doing is making this partisan.’

The Clintons were two of 10 people subpoenaed to appear before the committee after a unanimous committee vote to launch the investigation.

To date, however, just one of those original 10 people — former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr — has appeared in person. Former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Azar was also deposed pursuant to a separate subpoena.

But the Clintons are the only two so far who Republicans have pursued contempt charges against, arguing they have repeatedly refused to work with the committee in good faith on scheduling their depositions. The Clintons’ lawyers said the subpoenas are not legally valid.

‘It should be an interesting hearing, because if they’re going to hold the Clintons in contempt, I’m interested to hear if they’ll hold anyone else in contempt, including Republicans in this administration,’ Subramanyam said.

Multiple requests for comment to the remaining 19 Democrats on the committee went unanswered on Tuesday.

That includes Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, who did not attend either of the panel’s scheduled depositions with the Clintons in January.

Rep. Emily Randall, D-Wash., another member of the panel, even waved Fox News Digital off during an attempt to ask about her thoughts on the Clinton contempt effort. She claimed she was engaged in an ‘intense’ conversation with a congressional aide.

Garcia had previously accused House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., of hypocrisy in trying to hold the Clintons accountable while not pushing harder to enforce the subpoena aimed at forcing the DOJ to release all of its Epstein files, which it has not yet done.

‘I think it’s incredibly hypocritical for James Comer to go out and try to hold in contempt his political enemies while [Attorney General Pam Bondi] is actively breaking the law, and he refuses to hold her in contempt,’ Garcia told MS NOW last week.

But in his opening remarks ahead of the committee meeting, Comer is expected to argue that it would be Democrats who are acting hypocritical if they do not vote to hold House-wide contempt votes.

‘We’ve offered flexibility on scheduling. The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance, marked by repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction,’ Comer will say, according to remarks obtained by Fox News Digital. ‘Today, the Clintons must be held accountable for their actions. And Democrats must support these measures, or they will be exposed as hypocrites.’

Neither of the Clintons have been implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — a Republican who left office earlier this year after a falling out with President Donald Trump last year — poured cold water on the president’s ambitions to add Greenland to the U.S.

‘We are approaching $40 Trillion in debt and Social Security is going to be insolvent by 2033. Is anyone even talking about how much it’s going to cost the American people to take over Greenland?’ Greene asked in a Tuesday post on X.

‘Saying it’s ‘for your safety’ is not sufficient. We’ve heard that one before and it didn’t turn out so well,’ she added.

The U.S. national debt is more than $38.46 trillion, according to fiscaldata.treasury.gov.

Trump has said the U.S. needs to acquire Greenland as a matter of national security.

‘The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building,’ he asserted in part of a Truth Social post last week.

‘China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it,’ he declared in part of another Truth Social post last week. 

‘Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake,’ he asserted. ‘Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important.’

The Trump administration extended invitations to Russia and Belarus to join a proposed Gaza ‘Board of Peace,’ officials in both countries said Monday. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow that Russian President Vladimir Putin is reviewing the invitation.

‘President Putin has indeed received an offer through diplomatic channels to join this Board of Peace. We are currently studying all the details of this proposal,’ Peskov said, according to Russian state media outlet TASS. ‘We hope to contact the U.S. side to clarify all the details.’

Belarus’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs also confirmed receiving an invitation, saying in a post on X that President Donald Trump sent Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko a letter proposing the country become a founding member of the ‘Board of Peace.’

‘We are ready to take part in the activities of the Board of Peace, taking into account and hoping that this organization will expand its scope and authority far beyond the mandate proposed in the initiative,’ the ministry said.

Other countries over the weekend, including Argentina, Jordan, Canada, India, Egypt, Hungary and Vietnam, announced they too had received invitations from the White House.

Neither the State Department nor the White House immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment about a full tally of all countries invited.

The White House released a statement on Friday outlining the next phase of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, naming senior international figures to oversee governance, reconstruction and long-term development of the enclave.

‘The Board of Peace will play an essential role in fulfilling all 20 points of the President’s plan, providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, and ensuring accountability as Gaza transitions from conflict to peace and development,’ the statement said in part.

Trump will chair the board and be joined by a group of senior political, diplomatic and business figures, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and billionaire Marc Rowan, among others.

The Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump’s proposed Gaza peace board would require countries seeking a permanent seat to pay a $1 billion fee, according to a draft charter circulated to prospective members.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on X that the composition of a separate ‘Gaza Executive Board,’ which names Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi as appointed members, was not coordinated with Israel and ‘runs contrary to its policy.’

Iran’s internet blackout has hardened into a permanent system of digital repression, with the regime treating citizens’ access to the outside world as an ‘existential threat,’ according to digital rights monitors.

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks reported Monday that Iran’s connectivity landscape had shifted dramatically as the country entered its 22nd day of unrest, following several days of almost total nationwide internet shutdown.

‘On the twenty-second day, after several days of an almost complete internet shutdown, reports emerged of limited and unstable internet connectivity in some parts of the country,’ NetBlocks reported.

‘Indications are that we’re seeing a move toward a kind of ‘filternet plus’ censorship scheme in Iran,’ NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker told Fox News Digital before pointing to ‘a rapid decline into a darker kind of digital darkness.’

‘The key difference from the pre-protest filternet arrangement is that, while internet platforms were extensively censored before, the regime is selectively whitelisting only a handful of services it deems critical for business needs.

‘Even this selective access is sporadic, which means the censorship is likely still in the test phase,’ he added. ‘In practice though, ordinary users remain offline.’

Toker described how the digital darkness ‘is in fact getting darker because the information controls are getting tighter.’

‘Where international links were tolerated as a window to trade, the regime is approaching each of these as potential threats,’ he said before adding that the regime ‘sees its own citizens’ ability to communicate with the rest of the world as an existential threat because the people are disaffected.’

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) at least 2,571 people were killed as of Monday, with additional deaths reported but not yet fully verified amid the communications blackout.

The internet blackout began Jan. 8 amid escalating demonstrations since Dec. 28, as authorities sought to prevent protesters from organizing, sharing videos of crackdowns and communicating with the outside world.

Since then, connectivity has remained inconsistent, with frequent outages and throttling even when partial access is restored.

Iran International reported the blackout was expected to last until at least late March, with IranWire saying government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani told media activists that access to international online services would not be restored before Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, on March 20.

‘Having internet access was always a window to the outside and a lifeline for many Iranians,’ Toker added. ‘It allowed for personal expression and culture that is banned by the regime.’

‘These online freedoms can be as simple as online gaming, watching foreign movies or women’s ability to participate equally in spaces that would otherwise be barred by the Islamic Republic,’ he added.

‘With the internet blackout continuing, the curtain has been drawn on that window,’ Toker said. ‘This is angering many Iranians, particularly Gen Z, who stand to lose a part of their identity.’

The blackout has also coincided with cyber incidents targeting Iran’s state infrastructure.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, anti-regime activists hacked Iran’s national broadcaster, briefly interrupting state television to air protest messages and calls from Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah and a prominent opposition figure.

‘We aren’t able to see the specific hack here,’ Toker explained. ‘The lack of up-to-date security is an issue for Iran.’

‘It is caused directly by the country’s digital isolation,’ he said. ‘Iran’s internet systems are outdated, and security tools aren’t available due to internet restrictions.’

Toker added that embargoes force widespread use of pirated software, which often contains hidden vulnerabilities that can be exploited to breach critical networks.

He said cyber warfare played a major role during the June 2025 clashes between Israel and Iran, prompting the blackout as a defensive measure against digital attacks. Israel, he noted, also restricted parts of its own network at the time.

‘In 2026, we haven’t seen the same focus on cyber incidents, but it’s clear there’s an ongoing battle between state actors as well as individual hackers,’ Toker said.

President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Denmark on Monday ramped up its military presence in Greenland, deploying extra troops to the strategic Arctic territory amid escalating tensions with President Donald Trump.

Local Danish broadcaster TV 2 said the Danish Armed Forces confirmed a new contingent of troops, described as ‘a substantial contribution,’ were arriving at Greenland’s main international airport Monday night.

Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, head of Denmark’s Arctic Command, said about 100 Danish soldiers have already arrived in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, with others later deployed to Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland.

The new military move comes in the wake of comments made by Trump over the region’s strategic and military importance. 

In a Truth Social post Jan. 18, Trump warned that Denmark had failed to secure Greenland against foreign threats.

‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland,’’ Trump wrote. 

‘Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’ he said.

On Monday, a text message exchange between Trump and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre over Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize was released in a statement.

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?’ Trump said before adding that there were ‘no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he said in part of the exchange.

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT,’ he added.

Before now, according to Reuters, Andersen had said that Danish troop deployment was driven by broader security concerns, not by Trump’s statements.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen also said that Denmark has begun increasing its military footprint in and around Greenland in cooperation with its NATO allies and as part of efforts to strengthen Arctic defense, Reuters reported.

Danish forces already stationed in Greenland could remain for a year or more, with additional rotations planned in the coming years.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 15 the presence of European troops would not affect Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

‘I don’t think troops from Europe impact the president’s decision-making process, nor does it impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,’ she told reporters.

The additional Danish troop deployment also came following Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would impose a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from countries that have supported Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed Britain’s Parliament on Tuesday, telling them that he had come to ‘calm the waters,’ as tensions between Washington and its European allies have intensified in recent weeks over President Donald Trump’s push to acquire Greenland.

Johnson’s address — the first ever delivered by a sitting U.S. House speaker to the British Parliament — came on the eve of the United States’ 250th anniversary and against a backdrop of strain in transatlantic relations, including Trump’s sharp criticism of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer hours earlier over a deal involving the Chagos Islands.

‘I spoke to President Trump at length yesterday, and I told him that I really felt that my mission here today was to encourage our friends and help to calm the waters, so to speak,’ Johnson said. 

Johnson emphasized that despite current disagreements, the U.S. and UK remain bound by a durable alliance built on shared history, values and security interests.

‘We’ve always been able to work through our differences calmly as friends. We will continue to do that,’ he said. ‘I want to assure you this morning that that is still the case.’

The speaker said his visit had taken on new urgency as geopolitical tensions escalated in recent days. He described his role as reinforcing stability among allies while signaling resolve to adversaries.

Johnson tied his remarks to the approaching 250th anniversary of American independence, framing the milestone not simply as a celebration, but as a moment of reflection and recommitment — particularly as Western nations confront external threats and internal divisions.

He warned that U.S. adversaries are increasingly challenging Western democracies through ‘increasingly sophisticated forms of subversion.’ 

‘We see China, Russia and Iran grow more aggressive and emboldened as they intensify their efforts to exert economic, political, and military influence around the world,’ Johnson said. ‘We see a callous disregard for basic human rights, new provocations, and even the theft of intellectual property on a scale like we have never seen before.’

Johnson said Trump is focused on those threats, particularly in strategically sensitive regions such as the Arctic.

‘Clearly, President Trump is taking seriously the modern and dynamic threats that China and Russia pose to our global security, and especially and in focus the last few days as it relates to the Arctic,’ he said.

While acknowledging room for debate among allies, Johnson stressed that the dangers posed by rival powers must be confronted collectively.

‘While we can have thoughtful debate among our friends about how best to counter these threats, we all certainly agree they must be countered,’ he said.

Speaker Johnson praised Britain and other allies for recent cooperation, including enforcement of sanctions. He clarified that Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda does not mean ‘America alone.’ 

He praised NATO members for increasing defense spending and highlighted cooperation through alliances such as AUKUS, calling them evidence that national interests and collective security can coexist.

‘Whether it’s NATO’s nations historic commitment to raise their investment in defense… or the AUKUS alliance deepening its cooperation in submarines and undersea defense, our partnership is proving that nations can prioritize their individual interests responsibly,’ he said.

Johnson invoked the shared heritage of the U.S. and UK, warning that military strength and economic power are meaningless without confidence in a shared set of values.

‘Strong and lethal militaries matter,’ he said. ‘Robust and thriving economies matter, but they mean little if we forget what we’re fighting for.’ 

President Donald Trump, who has been pressing for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, continued to beat the drum on the issue early on Tuesday.

‘I had a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland. I agreed to a meeting of the various parties in Davos, Switzerland. As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees!’ the president declared in part of a Truth Social post.

Trump is slated to speak at the World Economic Forum annual meeting on Wednesday.

In another post on Tuesday, Trump shared a graphic that appeared to depict Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance standing behind Trump as he held a flagpole flying an American flag near a sign that described Greenland as a ‘US TERRITORY EST. 2026.’

‘Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER,’ the president asserted in part of a separate post.

‘The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING. Thank you for your attention to this matter,’ he asserted.

Last week, Trump warned of tariffs as he continued to press the matter of Greenland.

‘Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland,’ Trump declared in a January 17 Truth Social post.

Tuesday, January 20, marks the one-year anniversary since Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration.