Breakfast Wrap: US reviewing AUKUS
The United States has confirmed it will review the AUKUS security pact.
The agreement was signed by Australia, the US and the UK in 2021.
Its key component is to have Australia buy nuclear-powered submarines from the US before building its own.
A US defence official has told the ABC the review is designed to ensure the pact aligns with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda which includes ensuring "allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence"
On today's Breakfast Wrap you'll hear from former Ambassador to the US Joe Hockey, and former Secretary of the US Navy Richard Spencer.
We'll also take you to France, where Minister for Environment and Water Murray Watt is making a new commitment to protect the world's oceans.
And we'll find out what's happening to the farm workers America relies but who are being targeted by Donald Trump's immigration raids.
Recap the morning's news, politics and global affairs with the Breakfast Wrap
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
Breakfast Wrap: What next for AUKUS?
The questions about Australia's deal to buy nuclear powered submarines aren't going away. We learnt this week the US Defence Department is reviewing the agreement. And while the Australian government is playing it cool and insisting there's nothing usual about that, not everyone is so sure. We'll bring you the latest reaction here from shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor and get the view out of the other AUKUS partner, the UK. Also today bring you a panel of journalists to wrap the huge political week that was. And a flight travelling from India to the UK has crashed on take-off. We'll get an early view from one aerospace expert about what happened. Recap the morning's news, politics and global affairs with the Breakfast Wrap
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
NSW to end rebate scheme for home batteries
As the federal government looks to kick off a national rebate scheme for home batteries, is the sun setting on the New South Wales government's rebate scheme? From July 1, households in New South Wales will have access to up to 10,000 dollars for their home batteries under the Commonwealth program. But not everyone is convinced this is a better offer. Guest: Heidi Lee Douglas, chief executive of consumer advocacy group Solar Citizens Heidi Lee Douglas, chief executive of consumer advocacy group Solar Citizens Producer: Grace Stranger Federal Minister for Climate and Energy Chris Bowen and NSW Minister for Climate and Energy released the following statement: "The Albanese and Minns Labor Governments are teaming up to double the benefits available to NSW households and small businesses. We'll help more people in NSW access cheap, fast and safe solar energy in their homes and businesses night or day, when they need it."
ABC News
40 minutes ago
- ABC News
Trump can keep National Guard deployed to LA for now, appeals court rules
A US appeals court has temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California after he deployed them there following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it would hold a hearing on the matter on June 17. The ruling came just hours after a federal judge's order was to take effect at noon on Friday, local time. Earlier on Thursday, US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Guard deployment was illegal, violating the Tenth Amendment and exceeding Trump's statutory authority. The order applied only to the National Guard troops and not Marines who were also deployed to the LA protests. The judge said he would not rule on the Marines because they were not out on the streets yet. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had asked the judge for an emergency stop to troops helping carry out immigration raids, had praised the earlier ruling. "Today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test," he said in a news conference before the appeals court decision. The White House had called Breyer's order "unprecedented" and said it "puts our brave federal officials in danger". "The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. "The President exercised his lawful authority to [mobilise] the National Guard to protect federal buildings and personnel in Gavin Newsom's lawless Los Angeles. "The Trump Administration will immediately appeal this abuse of power and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue." Mr Newsom's case was solely focused on the National Guard, and the judge said when the state attorney asked about whether this could apply to the Marines that he would not rule on that because they were not on the streets yet. About 700 Marines have been undergoing civil disturbance training at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach in Orange County, California. "I have been told by the office of the governor that within the next 24 hours, 140 Marines will replace and relieve National Guard members in Los Angeles," attorney for the state Nicholas Green told the court. Typically the authority to call up the National Guard lies with governors, but there are limited circumstances under which the president can deploy those troops. Mr Trump federalised members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service under certain limited circumstances, such as when the country "is invaded," when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government," or when the president is unable "to execute the laws of the United States". Judge Breyer said in his ruling that what is happening in Los Angeles does not meet the definition of a rebellion. "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" he wrote. It was not immediately clear how that would change the situation on the ground. Mr Newsom sued to block the Guard's deployment against his wishes. California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids. The governor argued the troops were originally deployed to guard federal buildings and called for the court to block the troops from helping protect immigration agents during the raids, saying involving the Guard would only escalate tensions and promote civil unrest. Major General Scott Sherman, commander of Task Force 51 which is overseeing the Guard troops and Marines sent to Los Angeles, said as of Wednesday about 500 Guard troops had been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations. Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials. None of the Marines have been trained to go on immigration raids, and it is not yet clear if they eventually will, Major General Sherman said. In his broad ruling, the judge determined Mr Trump had not properly called the Guard up in the first place. The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires the president to go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard. Brett Shumate, a lawyer for the federal government, said Mr Trump complied with the statute by informing the general in charge of the troops of his decision and would have the authority to call in the Guard even if he had not. In a brief filed ahead of the Thursday hearing, the Department of Justice said Mr Trump's orders were not subject to judicial review. "Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation," the department said. "Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. "And courts should not interfere here either." Judge Breyer, who at one point waved a copy of the constitution, said he disagreed. "We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is of course limited in that authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George." AP
