April 24, 2026 - 72 hours before Royal Visit, Trump threatens to review status of The Falkland Islands

This is LBC.

With Volkswagen, energising a better Britain.

It is 12.33.

I always, that story Stuart told about the dread,

the cold dread he'd feel when they were going around the class,

doing plays.

I was the polar opposite of that.

You won't be surprised to learn.

And so interesting to see the world through other people's eyes

and recognise that the world could not have been more different.

You could be sitting next to someone who was in terror at the thought

of being asked to read in class,

whereas I was always slightly meft when I wasn't reading out out,

showing off, I suppose, in class.

To Washington, D.C., where Simon marks a weight,

and as is sometimes the case, Simon,

there is more to talk about at 12.33.

Then there was when we asked you to come on the programme,

shortly after 10 o'clock this morning,

we should probably begin with the Falkland Islands.

Yes, absolutely, James.

And I think we should probably begin with the fact that you and I

have both missed a major chance here,

because if 24 hours ago, we had placed a bet on polymarket or calcium

to say that we'd be talking today about the Falkland Islands.

We would be quid's in a bit like the soldier here

who was suddenly accused last night of placing bets

on one of those two platforms over the military operation in Venezuela

and trousering $400,000,

who's now been arrested.

Look, it is extraordinary that as we wait for the King and the Queen

to arrive here in Washington next week,

we are now talking about the Falkland Islands

because of this leaked Pentagon document that suggests

that in a whole raft of reprisals that the United States

and the Trump administration is thinking of taking

towards NATO members, one of them

is to renounce the notion that the UK

has any sovereign right to the Falkland Islands,

which, of course, would be a massive gift

to Donald Trump's mucker in Buenos Aires,

Javier Malay, and would also very neatly

from Donald Trump's perspective, further punish Keir Starmer,

something that he can't stop talking about here,

even as we prepare for the state visit

by the King and Queen that is supposed to be marking

the beginning of America's 250th birthday commemorations.

So this plan, apparently, potentially

to pull support for British sovereignty

towards the Falklands, at least to question it,

one measure that's included in that document

that has been leaked from the Pentagon,

one has to wonder about the timing of this leak,

but it also demonstrates much more importantly

and much more broadly that the Trump administration

and the president is absolutely still thinking

about pulling out of NATO because he's so furious,

he says, over NATO failing the test

that he set for the alliance in Iran.

And so earlier this month, he was asked by the news agency,

writers, whether he was still thinking

about pulling out of NATO and he said,

well, wouldn't you be thinking about it

if you were in my shoes?

And it's absolutely evident that both he,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio now,

Vice President J.D. Vance, are aligned,

and obviously the Secretary of War, Pete Egseth,

presiding over this document at the Pentagon,

absolutely aligned in terms of threatening put

to pull the rug out completely from under

the transatlantic alliance that has kept the peace

in Europe for eight decades.

I mean, it is mind-boggling, isn't it?

I know we do this often,

we get used to it for a while, talk about it for a while,

normalize it for a while,

and then some sort of metaphorical bomb goes off,

and you recognize just how absolutely insane,

almost everything has become.

Hard even to think of a rationale,

but I mean, a question I would have asked you 12 months ago,

before all of this became commonplace,

are people like Rubio on board with this,

genuinely in their bones,

or are they just acting opportunistically

and doing whatever the president wants?

And what rationale could there be for this

is Vladimir Putin yanking Trump's lead?

I mean, the only person who would celebrate the collapse

of NATO, or indeed the removal of the United Kingdom

from the European Union on the international stage,

would be our enemies.

And yet, the United States is still supposed to be our ally.

But we don't know the answer to any of these questions, do we?

Really?

Well, I do think it's important to put into

its historical context, the Falklands and the United States

and its relationship with the UK,

because you and I were both young lads when that war took place.

And remember that at the time,

President Ronald Reagan was very dubious

about Margaret Thatcher's decision

to send the fleet to the South Atlantic,

and indeed was urging her on numerous occasions

to strike a deal, a phrase that, of course,

has even more resonance now than it did back in 1982

with the Argentinian government,

and she absolutely pushed back and said,

no, we've got to draw a line, if not in the sand,

in the water, certainly a line on the soil

of the Falkland Islands, and make it absolutely clear

that the aggression of the Argentinians

was not going to stand.

So America has always been dating back to 1982,

wobbly on the Falklands.

What the Trump administration would say is,

their national security strategy decrees

that the Western hemisphere is their unique sphere of influence.

They've demonstrated through the attack on Venezuela

and through various other things they've been up to,

including the conversations they're having

with the government of Cuba

that they intend to be the dominant power

in America's own Latin American backyard.

And Donald Trump is furious, obviously, with the Prime Minister,

not only furious with the Prime Minister,

wants to undermine the Prime Minister at every turn

in order to grease the wheels of Nigel Farage and Reform UK

in an effort to get his man into number 10 Downing Street.

And so this is all red-

Another Vladimir Putin fan.

I mean, I don't think we should stop mentioning that.

It's out there in place.

No, well, and speaking of Vladimir Putin,

I mean, the other thing we learned last night,

which is going to be a massive challenge for number 10,

is that the president of the United States

intends to invite Vladimir Putin to attend the G20 summit

that is going to be held on the outskirts of Miami

at Donald Trump's own golf club just to underscore

the nature of the event in October.

And that is going to be a massive problem for number 10,

for the Alize Palace, for leaders throughout the G20,

who will now have to decide two things.

One, are they willing to attend a G20

that's going to be held at Donald Trump's personal property?

The White House says he's going to make no money out of it,

but precisely what that looks like has not been, of course, divulged.

But number two, are they going to show up at an event

where Vladimir Putin, a wanted war criminal,

is going to be welcomed quite literally into the bosom

of the Trump business empire.

So that is another question that is hanging over the royal visit,

the relationship with number 10, and again,

the fact that it was disclosed last night, revealed last night,

that that invitation by the State Department

is apparently about to go out to the Kremlin,

seems not to be entirely coincidental.

Pretty much every other country around that table

would arrest Vladimir Putin if he set foot on their soil.

What would be required to arrest him?

Because of their support for the tribunal,

the United States, of course, as we've already seen,

through Vladimir Putin setting foot on Alaskan soil,

the first time the Russian leader had been welcomed

to set foot on American soil in over a decade.

As we've seen through that first summit,

and now this apparent invitation that's going to him

to attend the G20, this administration has absolutely no compunction

about allowing him to set foot on American soil,

because they, of course, argue they're not bound by the arrest warrant.

Yeah, same in Netanyahu, actually,

well, we're discussing sort of... Yes, correct.

Well, thank goodness, then, despite all of this,

that Donald Trump hasn't been rude about any of the King's children

given the imminence of the State visit.

Yeah, well, why don't we have a listen to?

What Donald Trump had to say yesterday about the upcoming State visit

and listen to all of this, because it is so revealing

on multiple levels.

It all started with a question to the president yesterday about Prince Harry.

Prince Harry, today, has said that he would like to do more

to end the war in Ukraine.

Getting his appropriate for a royal to make those comments

to have a visit on Monday.

Prince Harry? Yes, sir.

How's he doing?

Is he an African?

He's like, please give him a regards, okay?

No, I don't know.

I think I know whether Prince Harry is not speaking for...

The UK.

That's for sure.

I think I'm speaking for the UK more than Prince Harry,

but I appreciate his advice, very much.

Which you are a great advice to the denerters of the State visit.

Well, I look forward to the denerters of the State visit.

Having King Charles come, he's a friend of mine.

We're really looking forward to it.

We've spoken, and it's going to have a great time, I tell you.

If I had that moral belt, it would be full.

I wish we had more seats.

We're going to have very great people that love the UK.

I love the UK.

I think they made a big mistake on energy.

You should open up the North Sea in Aberdeen.

You should open it up.

And the other thing is they made a big mistake on immigration.

Now, there's an awful lot in that,

starting with the sarcasm that the president offers

when he's asked about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

He has disdain for both of them.

That's on the public record going back a long while.

Then getting to a point where he actually says,

I'm speaking for the UK, which of course is a ludicrous position

for any president of the United States to take

when referring to any other government.

But then we get absolute clarity about the eggshells

upon which the King and the Queen will be walking next week

when they are here in Washington, DC.

I mean, he goes off on the riff about the ballroom.

We cut that down a bit because it's a long riff about the ballroom,

but he immediately goes to the ballroom

and it's a great shame he hasn't got more seats

for the dinner that's going to be taking place next week.

But then manages to take himself immediately

to hitting out at the Prime Minister.

And once again, raising the issue that he believes

the Prime Minister has made a major mistake

by failing to authorize more drilling in the North Sea

off the coast of Aberdeenshire for oil

and, of course, by not supporting him on Iran.

So how all of this is going to be choreographed next week,

when the King and the Queen are with him

and when they are not with him.

And he has access to reporters,

including now propagandists in that White House briefing room

who are going to ask questions

about the president's view of the UK

even while the King and Queen are here.

Is he going to adopt normal convention

and basically zip it and basically button it

until they've gone?

Or even, and then after that, of course,

it'll be open season again.

But even while they're here,

there's a tremendous risk that it's going to be open season again.

Do you, do you, briefly, do you think he can?

Do you actually, I mean, you watch him more closely

than most people do?

No, he's not capable of doing what you've just described.

Is he? No.

Not capable, not capable of being in a position

where he stops transmitting.

This is a man who is transmitting 24-7,

whether it's verbally in person with reporters

on his social media feed, even this week,

texting reporters, because he actually thinks

transmitting is governing. Right.

And he doesn't understand that governing is stuff

that you do when you're off camera,

when you're not in front of reporters,

when you're not constantly messaging.

He thinks he can flate the two.

They're both the same.

John Sealand, finally.

Who's here and what's happened?

Well, he was the US Secretary of the Navy,

and he was suddenly defenestrated by Pete Higgset,

the Secretary of War, a couple of nights ago,

to everyone's great surprise.

We all thought they must have had a row

over the stewardship of the Iran War,

and the conduct of the United States

was interesting, by the way, to hear President Trump yesterday

insist that he won't use nuclear weapons on Iran.

At least that was put on the record yesterday.

We now know that the reasons for John Feeland's departure

relate directly to presidential anger

over the fact that the Navy Secretary

was deemed to be dragging his feet

over the commissioning of $17 billion worth

of new battleships that, and I am not making this up,

the President wants to name after himself.

Trump class battleships that are going to be equipped

with rail guns and laser-guided weapon systems

that the Pentagon itself concedes

have not so far performed flawlessly in testing.

So big questions about a lot of the technology

that's supposed to be going to be included

in these fast custom-designed battleships

that President Trump has shown us

the designs of in various White House events

over the last few months.

Feeland was accused by the President of dragging his feet,

and so basically was fired by the President in person

at the White House on Wednesday,

and then replaced by his deputy.

A man who, and I am again, not making this up,

has previously articulated the viewpoint

that parts of California are being taken over

by witches.

And he, I mean, yes, he has said that.

It is on the record he's made a whole host of other

in temperate remarks on various issues,

but he actually has argued that the wicker community

is taking over parts of California.

Actual witches.

Has it sort of a hubble-bubble-toil and trouble territory?

Yeah.

He's also said, well, else...

That was the wicker community.

I think we should be careful, because, I mean,

in his telling, that's the way that he views members of...

Oh, I see.

No, no, an important clarification.

I don't know if you can clarify this.

He's also said that the military should be recruiting

alpha males and alpha females

who are going to rip out their own guts,

eat them and ask for seconds.

Oh.

Yeah, but a bit of a dispute there between him

and the Defense Secretary Pete Higgseth,

because, of course, the Secretary of War

isn't very interested in recruiting alpha females.

He wants... No female.

He's very into the male-ness of the army.

I need to tell you, I have a listener who...

I'm very fond of, called Robert,

who's getting very, very cross with us both

for saying Secretary of War,

because he quite rightly points out

that Trump has not got the authority

to change department names.

How many times do I have to remind you?

So I just wanted A to let Robert know

that I have registered and heard his anger in his fury

and to point out, Simon, that when you deploy that phrase,

you're doing so in a slightly ironic fashion.

Well, yes, I often say the self-styled Secretary of War.

Robert is absolutely right.

It is still the Department of Defense,

even though there are various plot places

in the building where it says the Department of War,

and he is still officially the Secretary of Defense.

But at a time when the President calls in the Secretary of War,

and he calls himself the Secretary of War,

I do think we...

If we carried on calling him the Secretary of Defense,

we would also be slightly misleading listeners.

So it's a complicated one.

Indeed it is, but as ever, you navigate it perfectly.

So I mean, have a lovely weekend.

Simon Martzer, our Washington Editor,

providing a character,

realistically, perfect analysis of the latest madnesses

to unfold in the United States of America.

It's just coming up to 10 to 1.