President Donald Trump excoriated the British government in a Truth Social Post on Monday for agreeing to relinquish sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, a strategic military location, to Mauritius. The Chagos Islands contain the Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a military base leased by the U.K. to the U.S. and used jointly by both countries. Located in the center of the Indian Ocean, the islands are considered strategically valuable. “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,” Trump said in the post. Brent Sadler, a senior fellow for naval warfare and advanced technology at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that Trump was right to oppose the Chagos deal for strategic reasons. “President Trump is keenly aware of the military and strategic implications of losing unfettered access and unencumbered by nearby Chinese presence of the base at Diego Garcia,” Sadler wrote in an email. “While a deal over Chagos which includes Diego Garcia is still a possibility, it is clear the one being proposed in London is not THAT deal,” he said. The president said that China and Russia see this as an act of “total weakness.” Trump connected the U.K.’s Chagos Island deal to his calls to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “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,” Trump wrote. Trump’s post triggered commentary by a number of British and American political figures. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent connected the Chagos issue to Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland. .@SecScottBessent: "@POTUS just believes that the U.S. needs Greenland because no-one will make a move on it then…we share a military facility on an island called Diego Garcia, and the U.K. is giving that island to Mauritius, and guess who is behind Mauritius? The Chinese!" https://t.co/mILUtwhjgo pic.twitter.com/llFbYiofOE— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 20, 2026 The U.K.’s Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch called the Chagos deal “not just an act of stupidity, but of complete self sabotage.” Paying to surrender the Chagos Islands is not just an act of stupidity, but of complete self sabotage.I’ve been clear and unfortunately on this issue President Trump is right. Keir Starmer’s plan to give away the Chagos Islands is a terrible policy that weakens UK security and… https://t.co/EgNPMyzJEQ pic.twitter.com/yrBl5uFuJR— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) January 20, 2026 Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage said, “thank goodness” Trump will veto the Chagos deal. Thank goodness Trump has vetoed the surrender of the Chagos islands.— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 20, 2026 While U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wasn’t mentioned in Trump’s post, it was clearly aimed at his administration. Starmer’s government signed the agreement to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in May. The deal would allow the British government to lease the land for the Diego Garcia base for 99 years, but would cost the government tens of billions of pounds. A U.K. government spokesperson said in response to Trump, according to ABC news, that Britain “will never compromise on our national security,” and that the deal was signed “because the base on Diego Garcia was under threat after court decisions undermined our position and would have prevented it operating as intended in future.” The deal was highly criticized at the time as a surrender of British territory with little benefit. The United Nations’ International Court of Justice has called the islands an integral part of Mauritius. However, Mauritius has never owned the Chagos Islands since its independence from the U.K. in 1968, and the indigenous Chagossian people have largely been opposed to the deal. And as Sadler noted, Mauritius has deep ties with China. In a joint editorial written for the British Telegraph in early January, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and Nile Gardiner, Heritage’s Barbara Lomas fellow, wrote about how the Chagos deal would be a huge win for the Chinese Communist Party. “The looming handover of the Chagos Islands is a massive coup for Communist China, which has long coveted a foothold in the region. There can be no doubt that Beijing will use this golden opportunity to advance its own interests at America’s and the UK’s expense,” Roberts and Gardiner wrote. They noted that “Mauritius will have full sovereignty over the Islands, and could offer China its own base on Chagos in close proximity to Diego Garcia, with endless opportunities for spying on U.S. and British military activities.” They added that Mauritius “could also sign a defense agreement with Beijing granting China access to the waters around the Chagos Islands, making the base at Diego Garcia practically impossible to operate for the United States.” The post ‘GREAT STUPIDITY’: Trump Blasts UK’s Chagos Islands Deal as Proof US Needs Greenland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Tuesday at The Heritage Foundation, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, and former Centers for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield shed light on how health officials and President Joe Biden’s administration sought to suppress the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Miller-Meeks told the audience that the Biden administration worked backwards from their preferred conclusion rather than grapple with the “spillover” outbreak theory. “Either I was stupid, and everybody else was vastly more intelligent than I was, or people don’t want people to know, because science isn’t consensus, and I think that’s the biggest thing,” Miller-Meeks said in her opening remarks, noting that dissenting opinions on the origins of the virus should have been welcomed rather than suppressed. “Science is a hypothesis. It’s an idea. You do a study, you get a conclusion, you repeat the study to show validity, but it’s not a consensus,” Miller-Meeks added. Redfield told the audience that, “almost every public health decision we made in the first six months of the pandemic was mainly wrong.” “I was just shocked by the lack of scientific knowledge about this kind of pandemic. Very rapidly, there became a narrative that you either bought into or you were discarded,” Redfield added. Miller-Meeks, the former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health and an ophthalmologist, was on the COVID-19 subcommittee during the height of the pandemic. Republicans were in the minority, however, and heading into 2022 elections, she argued for the continuation of the committee because the committee was unable “to get answers” and “bring the witnesses they wanted to while under Democratic leadership.” Miller-Meeks led the subcommittee after Republicans took the majority in the 2022 midterms. Miller-Meeks witnessed first-hand the controversial testimony of former health advisors Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak, who attempted to block emails from being released through Freedom of Information Act requests. Because of the subcommittee’s efforts, the congresswoman mentioned that she began to see the growing public distrust towards the government officials who handled COVID-19 under Biden. She added that this loss of trust in no small part stem from the suppression of the lab-leak theory. “Those who doubted gain of function are now conceptualizing that it was a lab leak and not natural,” Miller-Meeks said. “We still don’t have all of the Scientific papers that were put out in the public sphere and then removed [by the Biden administration]. That sphere was actually looking at genetic sequencing, the current cleavage side, and things that had not existed naturally before.” Miller-Meeks added that there was “very important information” that was “disseminated” when Republicans took back control of the House, which include China’s actions and intentions, the gain of function research, and what “the Chinese Communist Party was doing with DNA.” Redfield echoed Miller-Meek’s remarks. The former CDC director claimed that longtime government health officials suppressed information about China while cutting scientists, including himself, out of the process during the Biden administration. Redfield claimed he was “not included” in key decision-making conversations. “I didn’t know that they actually had meetings on February 1, when they had the teleconference with a group of scientists that were hand-selected, I believe, by Jerry McFerrin [and] Tony Fauci—and I wasn’t one of those scientists,” he said. “I only found that out with the Freedom of Information Act.” The post How Biden and Fauci Suppressed the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Greenland has been a national security concern of the United States since the 19th century. President Donald Trump is the most recent in a long line of American presidents expressing an interest in either acquiring Greenland or expanding the U.S. military footprint in Greenland in cooperation with Denmark. Given Greenland’s strategic location, Trump’s interest is eminently rational—but the United States should address the valid security concerns raised by Trump without risking a breach with NATO. American interest in Greenland goes back more than a century and a half. Secretary of State William Seward expressed interest in Greenland as early as the 1860s. American interest in purchasing territory from Denmark has a historical precedent as the U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. The American military presence in Greenland dates to the 1940s, and President Harry S. Truman expressed an interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark after World War II. The strategic rationale for a U.S. military presence became especially clear with the beginning of the Cold War. With the advent of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, flying over Greenland became the shortest path between the Soviet Union’s main bases and the United States. In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed a broad and comprehensive treaty that expanded upon a 1941 agreement, allowing the U.S. to establish and operate bases and troops in Greenland. Pituffik Space Base sits near the top of Greenland today, supporting missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance missions. The present public conversation around Greenland ignores some key points that explain the Trump administration’s increased interest in rethinking the American relationship to the island. There is already a legal mechanism for Greenland to declare independence if it so chooses, as Greenland’s 2009 self-rule law “establishes basically a road map for independence.” In 2023, a constitutional commission composed of members of the Greenlandic parliament presented a draft constitution for a post-independence Greenland. Additionally, an opinion poll from last year showed that 56% of Greenlanders are in favor of independence. The Danish government has long said that Greenland’s status is a question for Greenlanders to decide. The government may well also conclude that saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year currently spent supporting the Greenlandic government is a good deal for both Denmark and Greenland. As Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said “the self-rule law clearly stipulates that the future of Greenland is to be defined by Greenland and Greenlanders.” If Greenland were to declare independence, however, it would lose the generous subsidy provided by Denmark each year (representing roughly half of the Greenlandic government’s budget), raising concerns that some other country could step in to fill the funding gap. American conservatives took note of the potential emergence of a newly independent Arctic state with an uncertain source of income that could be potentially untethered from either Denmark or NATO. They are correct in fearing that China or Russia could potentially fill the funding gap and build a presence in the Arctic that would be unacceptable to both American and European interests. Denmark is a longtime American ally and has proven itself one of America’s most steadfast friends within NATO. Indeed, during the long war in Afghanistan, Danish troops consistently engaged in combat operations and were killed in action fighting the Taliban at a higher rate per capita than any other NATO ally. U.S.-Danish security cooperation is strong, with Denmark already operating U.S.-built F-35 fighter aircraft, discussing the purchase of P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and demonstrating a clear commitment to defense spending within NATO. It is clear that should the United States acquire Greenland over the objections of Denmark and other European countries, it could create real fissures within the NATO alliance. Such fissures could ultimately result in the breakup in NATO. What then could the United States do in coordination with Denmark and Greenland? The U.S. has a few options it could pursue in the event the Greenlandic government decides on independence from Denmark. The United States could offer a territorial status, akin to that of Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, in which Greenland is self-governing and not a state, but is a part of the United States. Alternatively, the United States could offer an arrangement similar to the compact of free association (COFA) agreements we currently have in place with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau, under which these countries are independent and self-governing, but the U.S. has sole access and responsibility for security matters in exchange for a generous American subsidy. Given Greenland’s small population of less than 60,000 people and an economy of only $3 billion, it would both struggle to arm a military that could adequately defend its sovereignty and to meet its financial obligations in general. Alternatively, the United States could work with Denmark and other European nations to station an increased number of forces in Greenland to better secure the island and the arctic from Chinese or Russian influence. At the same time, American and European governments can work together to access critical resources in Greenland—while at the same time providing well-paying jobs to Greenlanders. Indeed, the best near-term option is for the United States to sign an updated defense agreement with Denmark, one that updates the legal logic presented in the 1941 and 1951 agreements which justified the stationing of forces on the island as part of a continental defense architecture during a time of systemic threats. The updated agreement should formalize and expand U.S. access to Greenland’s territory for military, space, maritime, and infrastructure purposes while reaffirming Greenland’s status as a self-governing territory that is part of Danish sovereignty. Such an agreement would pave the way for the United States to reopen shuttered military bases which would expand the U.S.’ ability to detect Russian or Chinese maritime or air and missile threats to the homeland coming over the arctic pole. The governments of the United States, Denmark, and Greenland now have the opportunity now to craft a future that works to the advantage of all three countries, securing the interests of the American, Danish, and Greenlandic peoples alike. In acquiring Greenland, the U.S. would keep this crucial part of the Arctic free from adversarial influence, while not causing ruptures in NATO. The post A Conservative Greenland Policy Rationale appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Heritage Foundation researchers harnessed the power of artificial intelligence to argue in a new report that the U.S. is not prepared for a war with China.  “We believe a war is coming,” says Rob Greenway, Director of the Allison Center for National Security at the D.C. think tank. “We believe we are not prepared for it. We have proven we’re not prepared for it.” This weakness actually “incentivizes the Chinese,” Greenway told The Daily Signal.  Greenway and his team at Heritage used artificial intelligence to simulate an extended conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, in order to identify vulnerabilities for both the U.S. and China. The report also provides recommendations to the U.S. government.  Data collection and analysis for the 375-page report, titled “TIDALWAVE,” took about a year.  “No one has done this before because it’s such a heavy lift,” said Greenway, who also served on Trump’s National Security Council in the president’s first administration. “Without leveraging technology and figuring out how best to make it work for our purposes, it would have been impossible.”  The exercise uncovered previously unidentified vulnerabilities for both U.S. and China, he noted, and thus parts of the report were redacted for national security purposes.  The Heritage researchers who led the project have briefed government officials and members of Congress on the report.  “The People’s Republic of China poses the most significant threat that the U.S. has faced in decades, yet despite such a broadly accepted fact, we remain dangerously unprepared to counter this adversary,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said.  “Heritage is committed to applying the latest technology to undertake unprecedented challenges and provide solutions to the most pressing national security threats we face,” Roberts added.  Findings and Vulnerabilities Through the research process, Greenway says he was surprised to uncover the extent to which the U.S. has not corrected “deficiencies.” For example, in a conflict with China, critical U.S. munitions would begin to be unavailable after about a week and would be completely exhausted after 35-40 days in most cases, the exercise found.  But Greenway says he was also surprised to learn “the extent that China is vulnerable – far more so than I would have expected.” It is also clear from the research that U.S. partners and allies need to play a larger role in preparing to guard against Chinese aggression, he said.  The “cost” of a U.S. conflict with China would be “massive enough to push the entire planet into a global recession,” Greenway said, adding that disincentivizing China from starting a war is critical.  Addressing Vulnerabilities  Shortly before the report’s release, Trump announced plans to ask for a $500 billion increase to the U.S. defense budget for 2027. If Congress approves that increase, Greenway expressed hope that the new Heritage report is “going to inform” decisions related to future defense spending.  The money needed to fix the U.S. vulnerabilities is “a fraction” of the sum Trump is calling on Congress to approve for defense spending, according to Anna Gustafson, a research assistant in the Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation.  Solving the deficiencies would take an estimated three to five years and cost about $300 billion, Gustafson noted.  Greenway stated that the current goals are for Congress to approve the required defense spending, and for the Trump administration, more specifically the intelligence community and the Departments of War, Commerce, and Treasury, “to exploit the Chinese vulnerabilities that we identified.”  In short, the aim is for the U.S. to have “sufficient resources to engage in protracted conflict and win,” and for China to “have insufficient resources,” he said.   “We are confident that, as a result of doing this work,” Greenway says, “departments and agencies for our government and Congress are going to act.” The post AI Test Claims US Not Ready for War With China appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Justice Department has issued subpoenas for Minnesota’s Democrat leaders amid claims of conspiracy to impede federal law enforcement, sources say. The Justice Department has issued grand jury subpoenas to the offices of Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and the attorneys for Ramsey County and Hennepin County, sources told Fox News. NEW: DOJ sources confirm to @FoxNews that six grand jury subpoenas were served in MN today in relation to conspiring to impede federal law enforcement, including offices of Gov. Walz, AG Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor, & Ramsey & Hennepin Counties.— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 20, 2026 Frey’s office confirmed receipt of the subpoena, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has been served, his office says, days after news of a Justice Department investigation broke.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 20, 2026 Official Responses Walz responded to news of the investigation Tuesday. “This Justice Department investigation, sparked by calls for accountability in the face of violence, chaos, and the killing of Renee Good, does not seek justice,” he said in a written statement. pic.twitter.com/rGLZVW34kc— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) January 20, 2026 Frey also responded to the news on X. “When the federal gov weaponizes its power to intimidate local leaders for doing their jobs, every American should be concerned,” the mayor wrote, including the news of the subpoena. “We shouldn’t live in a country where federal law enforcement is used to play politics or crack down on local voices they disagree with.” When the federal gov weaponizes its power to intimidate local leaders for doing their jobs, every American should be concerned. We shouldn’t live in a country where federal law enforcement is used to play politics or crack down on local voices they disagree with. https://t.co/fcWpOMimcK— Mayor Jacob Frey (@MayorFrey) January 20, 2026 Ellison confirmed that his office received “a criminal grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice,” demanding “records and documents related to my office’s work with respect to federal immigration enforcement.” The Justice Department “is more focused on investigating my office than the killing of Renee Good,” Ellison wrote on X. “I will not be intimidated, and I will not stop working to protect Minnesotans from his campaign of revenge.” Trump’s DOJ is more focused on investigating my office than the killing of Renee Good.I will not be intimidated, and I will not stop working to protect Minnesotans from his campaign of revenge. https://t.co/BsFbEgYnvI— Keith Ellison (@keithellison) January 20, 2026 Immigration and Customs Enforcement has dispatched agents to Minneapolis in order to detain and deport illegal aliens. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that law enforcement have arrested 10,000 illegal aliens in Minneapolis over the past year. Democratic officials have signaled their opposition to the presence of the federal law enforcement. Frey recently used profanity in urging ICE to leave the city, and Walz suggested President Donald Trump was “at war” with him. The two made those remarks after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good on Jan. 7 while she was driving her car, right after her car appeared to make contact with him. She had been using the car for hours to obstruct traffic and frustrate ICE’s law enforcement efforts. Protests against the presence of federal law enforcement have continued in the Twin Cities area. The Daily Signal reached out to the DOJ and the offices of Walz, Ellison, and Frey, but did not receive an immediate response. This is a breaking news story and will be updated. The post Justice Department Subpoenas Walz, Frey, Other Leaders Amid Opposition to ICE appeared first on The Daily Signal.