In his second term as the 47th President, Donald Trump has adopted the phrase “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” as a viral catchphrase, typically used to punctuate formal announcements, policy shifts, or warnings on Truth Social.
Based on recent activity from late 2025 to early 2026, here are 10 of his most recent posts utilizing this phrase:
Date
Topic/Context
Key Excerpt
Jan 12, 2026
Iran Trade Tariffs
“Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the USA… Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Jan 2, 2026
Iran Protests
“If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters… the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Jan 2026
State Voting Rules
Regarding federal authority over state vote counting: “They must do what the Federal Government… tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY… THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!!!”
Oct 3, 2025
Homeland Security
“I am pleased to advise that I reversed the cuts made to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism for New York City and State… Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Oct 3, 2025
Hamas Ultimatum
Warning Hamas regarding hostages: “If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL… will break out… Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Oct 3, 2025
Flag Burning Order
Directing Law Enforcement: “Anybody burning the American Flag will be subject to one year in prison. You will be immediately arrested. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
May 10, 2025
India-Pakistan Ceasefire
“India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE… Congratulations to both Countries… Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Apr 2025
China Negotiations
“Negotiations with other countries… will begin taking place immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Feb 2025
Super Bowl Analysis
Discussing the results of the game in Arizona: “The results… will not be known for at least 4 weeks. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope that you thoroughly enjoyed the game!”
Jan 2025
Iran Oil Sanctions
“All purchases of Iranian Oil… must stop, NOW! … Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Why this phrase?
Political analysts note that the shift to this specific closing—which sounds like a formal human resources email or a legal notice—contrasts sharply with his usual rhetorical style. Some view it as an attempt to project a more “serious” or “authoritative” presidential image, while others see it as a passive-aggressive way of framing his social media “Truths” as official executive commands.
Would you like me to find the specific timestamps or links for any of these posts?
Thought, which is much more an actuarial / insurance topic, and I don’t know if anyone else has asked this [and I’m busy and I’m not scrolling through 1187 posts to see]:
As a general rule, damage due to civil unrest is covered. There were riot claims from 2020, but it wasn’t catastrophic by any stretch; no insurer was shit, we lost a ton of money to this, it could continue on and on - we’re slapping exclusions back on to exclude damage from civil unrest. Damage due to “acts of war, declared or undeclared” are generally not covered. I am presuming that damage inflicted by ICE and the rest of the feds in their lawless rampaging to date is covered, though I haven’t noticed any claims for it.
If Trump decides to invoke the Insurrection Act and sends in the military, is any resulting damage - especially when committed by cosplaying warriors - a result of an undeclared act of war and thus excluded from coverage? If Trump declares in some way wartime conditions exist regardless of how non-existent his authority is to make such a declaration, does that mean resulting damage is from an undeclared act of war and is thus excluded?
Cause … such an event has implications for insurers in general, and major implications for insurers writing property-type coverages.
Looks like “war” and “insurrection” are separate things in insurance lingo and I’m not sure if both are always excluded where one is. “War” has to be a sovereign (or “quasi-sovereign”) state. I doubt even CHAZ or Minneapolis would qualify as a quasi-sovereign state.
I was working for a company that had a share of the towers. The question was asked and quickly dismissed because it was a non-state action.
Quoting 18 USC 2331, which I think is a codification of the common law definition:
So, for 9/11, “war” fails because it wasn’t an armed conflict between military forces. Even if the hijackers could be viewed as “military forces”, their target was the United States in general, and not the US military. (Although I suppose an argument could have been made for invoking “war” for the Pentagon attack.)
I believe that there is case law that “insurrection” requires the act to be violence against the government with the intent to overthrow the government.
FWIW, here’s the legal definition of “riot”:
I’d think that invocation of the Insurrection Act might be a trigger for some “government action” exclusions, but usually there are constraints on what losses can be excluded when “government action” is involved.
And to make use of an unfortunate acronym, I should disclaim: IANAL
Perhaps then the point could be that Trump could call this an insurrection and it may not mean anything for insurance, the facts otherwise will determine how it is classified.
Ignoring my feelings towards our Glorious Leader… I can see an objective judge ruling that the definition of “insurrection” has evolved from the time the Insurrection Act was codified, and that acts of “civil disorder” which a state is unable or unwilling to respond to are sufficient for the Insurrection Act to be invoked; whereas insurance contracts might need there to be an actual intent of government overthrow.
I could also see someone making an argument that some of the anti-ICE violence might be demonstrations of an intent to overthrow the government, but that feels like a stretch.
In our new America the insurance industry negotiates with the president to determine how much to payout to the plebes, how much to pay directly to the president, and how the owners (billionaires and large corps) can suck up more assets to own from the lessers.
It would have been better if the ruling included an additional word: “there was no evidence that…were seriously endangered…” I believe that “serious endangerment” is the standard used in the Act.
My recollection is that residents and workers in the protest area were endangered. Whether they were “seriously endangered”, is probably debatable. Considering what all the Emergencies Act allows the Canadian federal government to do, I can see where a reasonable person might think that threshold hadn’t been met.