Author

admin

Browsing

President Donald Trump touted his poll numbers while speaking with reporters on the White House lawn Wednesday.

‘My approval rating is the highest it’s ever been,’ the president declared, pointing to a newly released national survey.

But five months into his second tour of duty in the White House, Trump’s approval ratings remain underwater in most, but not all, of the latest national polls conducted over the past three weeks.

An average of the most recent surveys suggests the president’s approval rating stands in the upper 40s, with his disapproval rating hovering slightly above 50%.

Trump has aggressively asserted executive authority in his second term, overturning longstanding government policy and aiming to make major cuts to the federal workforce through an avalanche of sweeping and controversial executive orders and actions, some aimed at addressing grievances he has held since his first term.

And the president, true to form, has been continuously grabbing headlines, including in the last two weeks for sending National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles in an effort to quell protests over ICE detentions and deportations of illegal migrants and over his mulling of the U.S. joining Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump started his second administration with poll numbers in positive territory, but his poll numbers started to slide soon after his late-January inauguration. The president’s approval ratings sank underwater by early March and have remained in negative territory ever since in most national surveys.

Former President Joe Biden, whose single term in the White House is sandwiched by Trump’s two terms, enjoyed positive approval ratings in June 2021, five months into his tenure. 

However, Biden’s numbers sank into negative territory in the late summer and autumn of 2021, after his much-criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan and amid soaring inflation and a surge of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the nation’s southern border with Mexico.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As lawmakers debate what role, if any, the United States should play in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, progressive ‘Squad’ member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., made the curious claim that no one has ‘attacked’ the United States. 

‘No one is attacking or has attacked Americans. It’s time to stop dragging Americans into war and letting Israel once again get America involved in their chosen war. Stand up for the Americans who believed you wanted peace and don’t commit another generation of Americans into a costly war,’ Omar said in response to President Donald Trump. 

Trump called for Iran’s ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!’ on Truth Social on Tuesday, and said the United States won’t strike Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ‘at least not for now,’ but signaled America’s ‘patience is wearing thin.’ 

A Fox News Digital report published Wednesday morning refutes Omar’s claim that Americans have not been attacked, including extensive examples of Iran’s direct and proxy strikes on U.S. forces, support for terror groups and assassination efforts.

Omar’s office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s inquiry about the validity of her claim. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday that Trump remains an Islamic Republic target. ‘They want to kill him. He’s enemy No. 1.’

The Department of Justice announced charges against an Iranian citizen and two New Yorkers in November for their role in a murder-for-hire plot targeting multiple American citizens, including Trump. 

Iran bears responsibility for the deaths of 603 U.S. service members in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, according to a 2019 Pentagon report cited by the Military Times. That figure accounted for 17% of U.S. deaths in the country during the period. 

In 2022, surviving family members and victims won a case against the Islamic Republic of Iran, using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to hold the regime accountable for its support of terror actors who killed or injured 30 U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of the Long War Journal who testified in support of the victims, told Fox News Digital that ‘Iran’s support for the Taliban and al Qaeda and the impact it had on the deaths and injuries to American soldiers and civilians is incalculable.’

‘Iran provided money, weapons, training, intelligence, and safe haven to Taliban subgroups across Afghanistan, including in the heart of the country in Kabul,’ Roggio said.

By Roggio’s estimation, ‘Iran’s support for the Taliban was only rivaled by that of Pakistan. I would argue that Iran’s extensive support facilitated nearly every Taliban attack on U.S. personnel.’

In 2020, in attempted retribution for the murder of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran targeted two U.S. bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq with surface-to-surface missiles.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., found that Iran likewise owed damages to the families and victims of 40 U.S. service members who were injured or killed in Iraq due to Iran’s support of terrorism in the country.

In 2023, Sayyed Issa Tabatabai, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s representative in Lebanon, admitted during an interview with the state-controlled Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) that the Islamic Republic was involved in two 1983 bombings that killed Americans in Lebanon. 

The bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut resulted in the deaths of 63 victims, including 17 Americans. When two suicide truck bombs exploded at the barracks of multinational forces in Lebanon, 220 Marines, 18 U.S. Navy sailors and three U.S. Army soldiers were killed, and 58 French troops were murdered.

Between October 2023 and August 2024, Iranian-backed Islamic Resistance in Iraq militias launched 180 attacks against U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Throughout their ‘decades of experience,’ Roggio said, Iraqi militias ‘are estimated to have killed more than 600 U.S. service members.’

In January 2024, three Americans were killed, and 25 others were wounded in a drone attack on an outpost in Jordan near the border with Syria. Two Iranians, one of whom had dual U.S. citizenship, were charged in connection with the attack.

At the time of the attack, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Iranian proxies had ‘launched over 150 attacks on U.S. troops’ following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. 

Roggio reported that on June 14, Iranian-backed militias ‘launched three drones’ at Ain al Assad, a U.S. base in western Iraq. The drones were shot down before reaching their target. 

He said that the drone attack appeared to be an ‘unsanctioned strike by an unnamed Iranian militia. Unlike past attacks, no group has claimed credit, and there have been no follow-on strikes.’ He believes Iran ‘wants to keep the U.S. out of the fight, as the U.S. military has the capability to hit the underground nuclear facility at Fordow.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a conservative fiscal hawk who refused to sign onto President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ is building an unlikely bipartisan coalition of lawmakers resisting the United States’ involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran. 

‘This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,’ Massie said in a social media post announcing the War Powers Resolution that he introduced with Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California on Tuesday. 

Massie, whom Trump threatened to primary during the House GOP megabill negotiations, invited ‘all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.’ By Tuesday night, the bipartisan bill had picked up 27 cosponsors, including progressive ‘Squad’ members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Across the political aisle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., signaled her support, writing that Americans want an affordable cost of living, safe communities and quality education ‘not going into another foreign war.’

The bill’s original co-sponsors also include progressive Democrat Reps.Pramila Jayapal, Summer Lee, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, who called it unconstitutional for ‘Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress.’

The War Powers Resolution would ‘remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic State of Iran’ and direct Trump to ‘terminate’ the deployment of American troops against Iran without an ‘authorized declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military forces against Iran.’

Lawmakers who oppose the United States’ joining the escalating conflict in the Middle East have sounded off on the unconstitutionality of Trump striking Iran without congressional approval. Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution. 

‘The American people do not want to be dragged into another disastrous conflict in the Middle East. I’m proud to lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie to reassert that any military action against Iran must be authorized by Congress,’ Khanna said. 

The president told reporters on Wednesday morning that he is weighing whether to sign off on military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,’ Trump said. 

Trump called for Iran’s ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!’ on Truth Social on Tuesday, and said the United States won’t strike Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ‘at least not for now,’ but signaled America’s ‘patience is wearing thin.’ 

On the sixth consecutive night of strikes between Israel and Iran, Iran warned that the United States joining forces with Israel would mean an ‘all-out war,’ as Israel bombarded sites overnight it says would have allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium, as well as attack Israeli forces.

Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leaders last week, which the Islamic Republic considered a ‘declaration of war’ and has since launched its own strikes against Israel. 

Thousands of American troops are based in nearby countries within range of Iran’s weapons, but Trump said on Wednesday that ‘we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.’

The Jewish State targeted Iran’s nuclear capabilities after months of failed negotiations in the region and heightened concern over Iran developing nuclear weapons. 

But Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to Geneva, said Iran ‘will continue to produce the enriched uranium as far as we need for peaceful purposes,’ as Israel continues to target Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the bill. 

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Vice President JD Vance insists Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is still an essential team member in Trump’s ‘coalition’ after President Donald Trump said he ‘didn’t care’ what she’d previously told lawmakers about Iran’s nuclear threat. 

‘DNI Gabbard is a veteran, a patriot, a loyal supporter of President Trump and a critical part of the coalition he built in 2024,’ Vance said in a statement Wednesday to Fox News Digital. 

‘She is an essential member of our team, and we’re grateful for her tireless work to keep America safe from foreign threats.’

Vance and Gabbard have both historically been outspoken leaders of the non-interventionist camp making up the Trump administration. Both historically have backeda foreign policy doctrine that supports minimal interference with other nations’ affairs. 

By comparison, other, more hawkish members of Trump’s Cabinet, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have historically backed military intervention in foreign conflicts. 

Vance has publicly supported Trump as the administration contemplates next steps to address Iran, though. Vance said Tuesday that while those worried about foreign intervention are right to be concerned, Trump has ‘earned some trust on this issue.’ 

‘And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals,’ Vance said in a Truth Social post Tuesday. ‘Whatever he does, that is his focus.’

Vance’s statement of support for Gabbard comes after Trump appeared to discount Gabbard’s March Senate Intelligence Committee statements, when she said she believed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. 

Gabbard told lawmakers in March the intelligence community assessed that Iran was ‘not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,’ she said. 

She did add that ‘Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.’

‘Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance,’ she said during the March hearing. 

Additionally, Gabbard released a video June 10 in which she stated the world was ‘on the brink of nuclear annihilation.’ Politico reportedthat Trump told associates at the White House that Gabbard was out of line and believed the video was an attempt to prevent him from endorsing Israel attacking Iran.

Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, said in a post on X Tuesday that Politico’s story was ‘total clickbait.’ 

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Monday he believed Iran was ‘very close’ to obtaining a nuclear weapon. When asked specifically about Gabbard’s March testimony, Trump stood firm in his assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

‘I don’t care what she said,’ Trump said. ‘I think they were very close to having one.’

Still, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement to Fox News Digital Wednesday that Gabbard and the president are aligned on Iran. 

‘Just because Iran is not building a nuclear weapon right now doesn’t mean they aren’t ‘very close’ as President Trump said on Air Force One,’ the official said. ‘POTUS and DNI Gabbard’s statements are congruent.’ 

Gabbard wasn’t invited to Camp David in Maryland to convene with other military officials and Cabinet members in June. However, she was in the White House’s Situation Room Tuesday as Trump kept an eye on updates in the Middle East.  

A White House official told Fox News Digital Tuesday that Trump and Gabbard’s views and statements on the matter are consistent with one another, noting that Gabbard said in March that she believed Iran had the capability to build a nuclear weapon. 

Trump told reporters Wednesday at the White House he hadn’t decided yet whether he would engage the U.S. in strikes targeting Iran but said that the coming days or the ‘next week is going to be very big.’ 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,’ Trump told reporters Wednesday. ‘And I said, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go?’ I said to people, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.’ It’s very sad to watch this.’

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump appears to be downplaying talk that some of his long-loyal MAGA supporters are breaking with him over the possibility that the president will order a military strike on Iran.

This amid the nearly week-long daily trading of fire between the Islamic State and Israel, America’s top ally in the Middle East.

‘My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m more in love with them, more than they even were at election time,’ the president said when asked about a GOP rift between some of his most vocal supporters of his America First agenda, and more traditional national security conservatives.

The president, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on the South Lawn of the White House, added: ‘I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy, and I have people outside of the base that can’t believe that this is happening. They’re so happy.’

Asked if he would order an attack on Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the president said, ‘I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble.’

The prospect of Trump jumping into the incredibly volatile situation in the Middle East is causing plenty of consternation among some of his top political and ideological allies, and creating divisions within MAGA – a rare moment for a movement that’s been firmly supportive of Trump since his 2016 White House campaign.

 

Some top MAGA voices over the past week have argued against any kind of U.S. military involvement with Israel against Iran, arguing it would contradict Trump’s America First policy to keep the nation out of foreign wars. And they say it would repeat the move more than two decades ago by then-President George W. Bush to attack Iraq, which Trump had long criticized on the campaign trail.

Among those speaking out have been conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a top Trump House ally.

Also voicing concerns while remaining firmly supportive of the president are Charlie Kirk — the conservative host and MAGA-world figurehead who leads the influential Turning Point USA — and Steve Bannon, a prominent MAGA ally and former top adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

But there’s been plenty of support for Trump, and for attacking Iran, by other top MAGA world voices.

Also defending Trump this week was Vice President JD Vance, who is a top voice in the America First, isolationist wing of the party.

Vance, speaking to both sides, highlighted Tuesday in a social media post that ‘people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.’

But Vance stressed that Trump ‘has earned some trust on this issue.’ 

And the vice president added that ‘having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using American military to accomplish the American people’s goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.’

Trump, speaking with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, said: ‘I don’t want to get involved either, but I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran can not have a nuclear weapon.’

‘My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don’t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon,’ the president added.

The current debate within the Republican Party wouldn’t have happened before Trump shook up and remade the GOP over the past decade.

Wayne Lesperance, a veteran political scientist and the president of New England College, highlighted that ‘the divide in the GOP can be traced to Trump’s promises to pull America back from its entanglements in the world.’

And Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who served at the State Department during Trump’s first term, noted that ‘Donald Trump changed the direction of the Republican Party’ when it comes to American military engagements around the world. 

‘That gave him a new coalition and new political power. This new war in the Middle East is certainly threatening that coalition. While we are not yet involved in a war, chances of escalation are dramatically increased and that certainly has ramifications with the MAGA coalition,’ Bartlett warned.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Lawmakers are debating what role Congress should play as the White House weighs its options in Iran. 

Does the legislative body have sole power to declare war, or should that power be ceded to the president?

The back and forth comes as President Donald Trump mulls whether to join Israel in its campaign against Iran or continue pushing for a diplomatic end and return to the negotiating table to hammer out a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Helping to ignite the arguments on Capitol Hill are a pair of resolutions in the Senate and House that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump’s power and reaffirm Congress’ constitutional authority.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are divided on whether they believe they have sole authority to authorize a strike against Iran or if Trump can do so on his own volition. A predominant argument is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Israel has been successful in taking out a few pieces of infrastructure that were key to that mission but has yet to do real damage to the highly-fortified Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and would likely need help from the U.S. to crack through the layers of rock shielding the site.

‘The Constitution says the prerogative to declare war, the power to declare war, is solely from the Congress,’ Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, told Fox News Digital. ‘It can’t originate from the White House. There is no constitutional authority for the president to bomb anyone without asking permission first.’

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military.

Then came the War Powers Act of 1973, which sought to further define those roles and ensure that the president has to give Congress notice within 48 hours of the deployment of troops who can only be deployed for 60 days. Notably, Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.

‘There’s really no argument for why he couldn’t obey the Constitution,’ Paul said. ‘Now, my hope is that he won’t do it, his instincts for restraint would prevail.’

Fox News reached out to the White House for comment.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., disagreed with Paul and said he believed Trump had the ability to authorize a strike but acknowledged it was ‘mixed’ and ‘clouded’ when factoring in the War Powers Act.

‘It’s clear that both Congress and the president have a role to play,’ he said. ‘But if you’re suggesting, should the president come to Congress first making that decision, it’s conditioned upon what year you want Congress to make a decision. Sometimes it takes us months, even years, to get nothing done.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters he believed Trump was ‘perfectly in his right to do what he’s done so far’ and reiterated that the ultimate goal was to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Senate Republicans have found an unlikely ally among Democrats in Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has vehemently advocated for Israel while his party has wavered.

Fetterman told Fox News Digital he did not believe a strike on Iran was ‘starting a war,’ echoing Thune’s sentiment that ‘we have a very specific mission to destroy the nuclear facilities. That’s not a war. That is a necessary military … exercise to destroy a nuclear facility.’

And Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital ‘it’s never been ruled’ whether the War Powers Act was constitutional, but he noted that the act still gave the president the authority to act as commander in chief.

‘I think it’s pretty much an irrelevant point if President Trump decides to aid Israel with some military action with those bunker-busting bombs,’ Johnson said. ‘It’s well within the timeframe of him coming under some kind of congressional action.’

Still, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who introduced his war powers resolution Monday, believed the measure was gaining momentum among his colleagues.

Kaine told Fox News Digital that, as events have developed, it made the ‘urgency’ of his resolution more apparent. He also expected it would get a vote in the Senate sometime next week. He argued that some Republicans would ‘very much want to be in the middle of hostilities with Iran.’

‘But the interesting thing is, they’ve never introduced a war authorization because their constituents would say, ‘Are you nuts?’’ he said. ‘And, so, they would like the president to do it, but they wouldn’t want to do it themselves.’

When asked if that was a move to shift blame elsewhere, Kaine said, ‘They think it will, but it won’t.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The US Federal Reserve held its fourth meeting of 2025 from Tuesday (June 17) to Wednesday (June 18) against a backdrop of trade tensions, spurred on by the Trump administration’s tariffs.

The central bank met analysts’ expectations by holding its benchmark rate in the 4.25 to 4.5 percent range.

Chair Jerome Powell stated that the Fed’s dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices remains in balance, noting that the US economy is solid. He added that the labor market is not a source of inflationary pressures.

“For the time being we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance,” Powell said in his post-meeting comments.

The Fed chair also drew attention to personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices for May, saying:

‘Estimates based on the Consumer Price Index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending in May, and that, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.6 percent.’

While official PCE price index data will not be released until June 27, the figures mentioned by Powell indicate that the index is up compared to April, when it came in at 2.1 percent overall and 2.5 percent less food and energy.

The PCE is the favored inflation measure used by the Fed when setting its benchmark rate.

Powell also noted slowing gross domestic product growth in Q1, attributing the change to greater spending by importers that worked to make purchases ahead of the implementation of import tariffs by the Trump administration.

The effects of tariffs have yet to be fully felt in the economy, as many retailers are still working through inventories purchased before the tariffs took effect. Powell asserted that it remains to be seen whether the price increases will be a one-time shock, or will have a more persistent impact on inflation.

Before the Fed announcement, President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he is dissatisfied with Powell and joked about appointing himself as Fed chair. Trump has previously expressed disdain for Powell, saying that he should be working more quickly to bring down the federal funds rate to stimulate the economy.

Powell was appointed Fed chair by Trump in 2017 and will hold the position until May 2026.

Gold was relatively flat after the Fed news, losing just 0.29 percent to US$3,379.48 per ounce. Silver declined for most of the morning, losing 1.03 percent, but was still near recent highs at US$36.72 per ounce at 3:00 p.m. EST.

The S&P 500 (INDEXSP:INX) was also flat, recording a 0.08 percent decline to reach 5,578. The Nasdaq-100 (INDEXNASDAQ:NDX) gained 0.49 percent to come in at 21,822, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX:.DJI) lost 0.12 percent, coming to 42,193.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Final Short Form Base Shelf Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement are Accessible on SEDAR+

 Rua Gold Inc. (TSXV: RUA) (OTCQB: NZAUF) (WKN: A40QYC) (‘ Rua Gold ‘ or the ‘ Company ‘) announces that, further to its news release of June 16, 2025 it has filed a prospectus supplement dated June 18, 2025 (the ‘ Prospectus Supplement ‘) to its final short form base shelf prospectus dated July 11, 2024 (as supplemented by the Prospectus Supplement, the ‘ Prospectus ‘) with the securities commissions in each of the provinces and territories of Canada except Quebec in connection with its public offering of up to 10,500,000 common shares in the capital of the Company (each, a ‘ Common Share ‘) at a price of C$0.70 per Common Share (the ‘ Offering Price ‘) for aggregate gross proceeds of up to C$7,350,000 (the ‘ Public Offering ‘).  In addition to the Public Offering, the Company will be completing a contemporaneous private placement (the ‘ Private Placement ‘) of up to 8,200,000 Common Shares at the Offering Price for aggregate gross proceeds of up to C$5,740,000 (the ‘ Private Placement ‘ and with the Public Offering, the ‘ Offering ‘). Cormark Securities Inc. and Red Cloud Securities Inc. (the ‘ Co-Lead Agents ‘) are acting as co-lead agents on a ‘best efforts’ agency basis in connection with the Offering.

The Offering is expected to close on or about June 26, 2025 (the ‘ Closing Date ‘), or such other date as agreed upon between the Company and the Co-Lead Agents, and is subject to certain conditions including, but not limited to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.

The Company has granted to the Agents an option (the ‘ Over-Allotment Option ‘) exercisable, in whole or in part, prior to the Closing Date to arrange for the sale of, at the Offering Price, up to 1,014,450 additional Common Shares for market stabilization purposes and to cover over-allotments, if any.

The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering for continuing the exploration program on its New Zealand properties, and for general working capital and general corporate purposes.

The Private Placement will be completed pursuant to applicable exemptions from the prospectus requirements in all of the Provinces of Canada . The Common Shares issued pursuant to the Private Placement will be subject to a statutory hold period in Canada expiring four months and one day following the Closing Date. The Common Shares may also be sold in the United States on a private placement basis pursuant to available exemptions from the registration requirements of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘ U.S. Securities Act ‘) and applicable U.S. state securities laws, and other jurisdictions outside of Canada and the United States pursuant to available prospectus or registration exemptions in accordance with applicable laws provided that no prospectus, registration statement or similar document is required to be filed in such jurisdiction.

Prospectus is Accessible through SEDAR+

Access to the Prospectus and any amendment thereto is provided, and delivery thereof will be satisfied, in accordance with the ‘access equals delivery’ provisions of applicable securities legislation. The Prospectus is accessible on the Company’s profile at SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca . An electronic or paper copy of the Prospectus and any amendment to the documents may be obtained, without charge, from Cormark Securities Inc. by phone at (416) 362-7485 or email at ecm@cormark.com , by providing the contact with an email address or address, as applicable. Prospective investors should read the Prospectus in its entirety before making an investment decision.

The securities referred to in this news release have not been, nor will they be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act or any U.S. state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent U.S. registration or an applicable exemption from the U.S. registration requirements. This news release does not constitute an offer for sale of securities, nor a solicitation for offers to buy any securities in the United States , nor in any other jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful. ‘United States’ and ‘U.S. person’ are as defined in Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act.

About Rua Gold

Rua Gold is an exploration company, strategically focused on New Zealand . With decades of expertise, our team has successfully taken major discoveries into producing world-class mines across multiple continents. The team is now focused on maximizing the asset potential of Rua Gold’s two highly prospective high-grade gold projects.

The Company controls the Reefton Gold District as the dominant landholder in the Reefton Goldfield on New Zealand’s South Island with over 120,000 hectares of tenements, in a district that historically produced over 2Moz of gold grading between 9 and 50g/t.

The Company’s Glamorgan Project solidifies Rua Gold’s position as a leading high-grade gold explorer on New Zealand’s North Island. This highly prospective project is located within the North Islands’ Hauraki district, a region that has produced an impressive 15Moz of gold and 60Moz of silver. Glamorgan is adjacent to OceanaGold Corporation’s biggest gold mining project, Wharekirauponga.

For further information, please refer to the Company’s disclosure record on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca .

This news release includes certain statements that may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. All statements in this news 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 and specifically include statements regarding: the use of proceeds from the Offering, the size of the Offering, the timing of the Closing Date and completion of the Offering, the exercise of the Over-Allotment Option, the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals; the Company’s strategies, expectations, planned operations or future actions, including but not limited to exploration programs at its Reefton and Glamorgan projects and the results thereof. 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 statement.

Investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. A variety of inherent risks, uncertainties and factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, affect the operations, performance and results of the Company and its business, and could cause actual events or results to differ materially from estimated or anticipated events or results expressed or implied by forward looking statements. Some of these risks, uncertainties and factors include: general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; risks related to the effects of the Russia Ukraine war; risks related to climate change; operational risks in exploration, delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration projects or capital expenditures; the actual results of current exploration activities; conclusions of economic evaluations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; changes in labour costs and other costs and expenses or equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry, including but not limited to environmental hazards, flooding or unfavorable operating conditions and losses, insurrection or war, delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing, and commodity prices. This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect any of the Company’s forward-looking statements and reference should also be made to the Company’s short form base shelf prospectus dated July 11, 2024 , and the documents incorporated by reference therein, filed under its SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca for a description of additional risk factors.

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.

NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

SOURCE Rua Gold Inc.

View original content: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2025/18/c3975.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Investors looking for exposure to the silver price and silver-mining companies should consider silver exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Spurred by moves in the gold market, safe haven buying as well as increasing demand from industrial sectors, silver saw strong price movements in the first half of 2025, breaching US$37 per ounce for the first time since 2011.

While silver has often been seen as a more approachable precious metal owing to its lower per ounce price, its performance has lagged gains seen in the gold price over the past few years. However, silver stole some of the spotlight in the second quarter of 2025 as it saw significant gains on the back of geopolitical tension and economic uncertainty from the US trade and tariff policy.

Like gold, investors can gain exposure to silver in several ways that each offer their own pros and cons, along with differing costs and risks. For example, investors can purchase physical silver bars or coins, or invest in silver futures.

Another way for investors to diversify their portfolio with silver is to invest ETFs. These products work similarly to mutual funds in that they pool investor resources into an asset. However, as their name suggests, ETFs are traded on exchanges like stocks, making them more accessible to investors.

While ETFs aren’t without risk, they can offer a more stable investment compared to individual stocks thanks to their diversification and the fact that they are often managed and rebalanced.

Silver ETFs come in several forms, such as ones that hold physical silver and ones that hold silver mining, royalty and exploration stocks. Investors looking to start trading silver ETFs should be aware of the options available to them to determine which silver ETF will best suit their precious metals investing needs and risk tolerance.

Here’s a brief look at 10 of the top silver ETFs by total assets. The first five ETFs offer exposure to the price of silver, while the last five provide exposure to silver-mining stocks.

Assets and prices for these silver ETFs were collected on June 17, using data from the funds’ web pages, and performance data is accurate for the end of Q1 2025.

5 ETFs for exposure to the silver price

1. iShares Silver Trust (ARCA:SLV)

Total assets: US$17.21 billion
Unit price: US$33.06

The iShares Silver Trust provides investors with access to the silver price performance, using the London Bullion Market Association silver price as its benchmark.

As the iShares Silver Trust’s web page warns, it is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or a commodity pool under the Commodity Exchange Act. Because of this, it is not subject to the regulatory requirements that apply to mutual funds or ETFs.

This trust holds 471 million ounces silver bullion and has a five year average annual total return of 18.99 percent.

2. Sprott Physical Silver Trust (ARCA:PSLV,TSX:PSLV)

Total assets: US$7.12 billion
Unit price: US$12.84

The Sprott Physical Silver Trust is an option for investors looking for the security of physical silver without the need to find secure storage.

The ETF is backed by 191.12 million ounces of silver held in trust in fully allocated London Good Delivery silver bars. Additionally, the ETF is fully convertible into physical silver, should investors decide they want the precious metal on hand. However, the fund states that holders ‘must have enough units to equate to ten 1000 oz silver bars.’

The average annual five-year return based on net asset value for the Sprott Physical Silver Trust is 11.67 percent.

3. Aberdeen Standard Physical Silver Shares ETF (ARCA:SIVR)

Total assets: US$1.92 billion
Unit price: US$34.68

The Aberdeen Standard Physical Silver Shares ETF’s investment objective is for its shares to reflect the performance of the silver price less the expenses of the trust’s operations. It has an expense ratio of 0.3 percent. This ETF comes with the same warnings as the iShares Silver Trust.

The fund is backed with 45.51 million ounces of silver held with JPMorgan Chase Bank in London in a secured vault. Its five year average annual return comes in at 13.12 percent based on net asset value.

4. ProShares Ultra Silver ETF (ARCA:AGQ)

Total assets: US$717.99 million
Unit price: US$48.69

Set up in December 2008 by ProShares, the ProShares Ultra Silver ETF was designed to offer daily investment results that correspond with twice the daily performance of the Bloomberg Silver Subindex. Because of this, the ETF is aimed at investors who are bullish on silver and able to monitor their investments on a daily basis.

The fund uses derivatives such as futures contracts to invest in silver and has an expense ratio of 0.95 percent.

While designed for short term investment, the ETF’s average annual five year return based on net asset value stands at 19.98 percent. Investors looking for a more accurate picture of its day-to-day performance can find a chart on the fund’s page.

5. ProShares UltraShort Silver ETF (ARCA:ZSL)

Total assets: US$32.87 million
Unit price: US$25.30

Alongside the creation of the ProShares Ultra Silver ETF in late 2008, ProShares launched its ProShares UltraShort Silver ETF. This fund was designed to provide investors with a hedge against declines in the silver market. It also has an expense ratio of 0.95 percent.

Because the fund is built around providing results at a negative two times daily performance of the Bloomberg Silver Subindex, it is meant for traders who have a high capacity for risk and who are willing to monitor their positions on a daily basis. The fund should be treated in the same way as the Ultra Silver ETF.

This high-volatility fund has an average annual total return of -44.93 percent based on net asset value over the previous five year period. However, as the fund is only meant to be held for very short intervals, this metric is less useful than for other funds. A more accurate picture of its day-to-day performance can be found on the fund’s page.

5 ETFs for exposure to silver mining stocks

1. Global X Silver Miners ETF (ARCA:SIL)

Total assets: US$1.97 billion
Unit price: US$48.66

The Global X Silver Miners ETF gives investors access to a basket of silver-mining and royalty stocks. The ETF benefits from the fact that these companies can climb when the silver price is rising. It also allows investors to avoid the risks associated with individual companies and lets them add geographical diversity to their portfolios.

This ETF has an expense ratio of 0.65 percent, and its top holdings include streaming company Wheaton Precious Metals (TSX:WPM,NYSE:WPM) at a weight of 21.22 percent, Pan American Silver (TSX:PAAS,NYSE:PAAS) at a weight of 12.98 percent and OR Royalties (TSX:OR,NYSE:OR) at 6.1 percent.

The five year average annualized total return for the fund is 11.75 percent.

2. Amplify Junior Silver ETF (ARCA:SILJ)

Total assets: US$1.42 billion
Unit price: US$14.97

The Amplify Prime Junior Silver ETF bills itself as the ‘first and only ETF to target small cap silver miners.’ The index provides a benchmark for investors to track public small-cap companies in the silver space.

The ETF has an expense ratio of 0.69 percent and its holdings span Canada, the US and the UK, with key silver companies such as Coeur Mining (NYSE:CDE) at 13.22 percent, First Majestic Silver (TSX:AG,NYSE:AG) at a weight of 10.61 percent and Hecla Mining Company (NYSE:HL) at 8.34 percent.

Over the last five years, the fund’s average annualized total return based on net asset value is 3.99 percent.

3. iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (BATS:SLVP)

Total assets: US$314.25 million
Unit price: US$17.96

The iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF tracks an index composed of global equities of companies primarily engaged in silver exploration or metals mining. The ETF has the lowest expense ratio of the three ETFs focused on silver stocks at 0.39 percent.

The large majority of companies in its holdings, about 69 percent, are traded on Canadian exchanges, and companies on US and Mexican exchanges combine for 27 percent.

The top three holdings for the iShares MSCI Global Silver Miners ETF are Pan American Silver at a weight of 22.98 percent, Industrias Peñoles (BMV:PE&OLES) with a weight of 12.6 percent and Hecla Mining at 8.74 percent.

The fund’s average annualized return over the last five year period is 16.2 percent.

4. Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF (NASDAQ:SLVR)

Total assets: US$99.9 million
Unit price: US$30.83

Unlike the other silver mining ETFs on the list, the Sprott Silver Miners and Physical Silver Fund has a combination of physical silver holdings as well as equities. The fund launched in January 2025, making it one of the newest entries to the list. Its management fee is 0.65 percent.

This ETF’s top holding is its counterpart Sprott Physical Silver Trust, which provides investors exposure to physical silver, at a 15.26 percent weight. Its next-largest holdings are MAG Silver (TSX:MAG) at 13.64 percent and Aya Gold & Silver (TSX:AYA) at 7.61 percent.

Since its inception in January 2025, the fund has a total return of 24.98 percent.

5. Sprott Active Gold and Silver Miners ETF (NASDAQ:GBUG)

Established in February 2025, the Sprott Active Gold and Silver Miners ETF is designed to provide investors broad access to both gold and silver equities. Additionally, as an active fund, it will see more frequent rebalancing to increase the potential of better returns for investors. Its management fee is 0.89 percent.

The fund’s top holdings consist of Coeur Mining weighted at 5.13 percent, OR Royalties at 5 percent and Torex Gold (TSX:TXG) at 4.82 percent.

Since its inception in February, the fund has seen a total return of 27.13 percent.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold an investment in Sprott Active Gold and Silver Miners ETF.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com