
Australia sticks to guns on defence as allies shell out
Australia is standing firm against US pressure to lift defence spending but looks "underdone" as European leaders endorse a five per cent commitment of their gross domestic product to security.
On the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia would decide its spending levels to meet its military needs.
The move risks a rebuke from US President Donald Trump, who has made clear he expects allies to drastically step up and increase their share of deterrence.
The nation moving to a floor of a three per cent spend on defence was a "prudent minimum", Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said.
He said the defence force had been "hollowed out", so the federal government could afford to invest in future capabilities which might be needed sooner than previously thought.
"Australia in broad terms now is looking rather underdone in terms of defence, having committed just over the 2 per cent GDP equivalent, which was the old NATO target, but that was for a different era," Dr Graham said.
"The narrative has been changed, both by US pressure and let's not forget also the primary factor, which is deteriorating security globally."
NATO members agreed to increase defence and security spending to five per cent of GDP.
But Spain objected to the pledge, prompting Mr Trump to threaten to punish the Iberian nation with a tougher trade deal.
Australia is also seeking to negotiate a reprieve from tariffs imposed by the US on imports, including a 50 per cent levy on steel and aluminium.
Mr Marles maintained Australia would stick with its own process, which involves the nation's defence spending increasing from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34.
"A very significant decision has been made here in relation to European defence spending and that is fundamentally a matter for NATO," he said.
"We'll continue to assess what our needs are going forward. As our prime minister has said, we will resource that."
Mr Marles did not meet with Mr Trump, or US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite intensive efforts by government officials to tee up a first face-to-face of an Australian minister with the US president.
Dr Graham said any embarrassment on Australia's part was mitigated by the limited representation of Asian partners at the summit.
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor reiterated the coalition's call for spending to lift to three per cent of the economy.
He took aim at Labor's failure to secure a meeting with Mr Trump, pointing to a flagged sit down with Xi Jinping.
"It seems that the prime minister is better able to get a meeting with the president of China than the president of the United States," Mr Taylor said.
But the defence minister did meet with his Ukrainian counterpart Rustem Umerov as Australia reaffirmed its support for Kyiv in its fight against Russia.
Mr Marles announced Australia will deploy a RAAF Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to Poland, in addition to 100 defence force personnel, to help provide visibility for key humanitarian and military supply routes into Ukraine.
The aircraft will be deployed for three months, concluding in November, and follows an earlier six-month deployment which was highly valued by the Ukrainians.
Australia announced new financial sanctions and travel bans on 37 individuals and seven financial entities involved in Russia's defence, energy, transport, insurance, electronics and finance sectors, as well as "promulgators of Russian disinformation and propaganda".
Mr Marles also signed an agreement with the NATO Support and Procurement Organisation, increasing co-operation in non-combat activities including logistics and capability acquisition.
with Reuters
Australia is standing firm against US pressure to lift defence spending but looks "underdone" as European leaders endorse a five per cent commitment of their gross domestic product to security.
On the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia would decide its spending levels to meet its military needs.
The move risks a rebuke from US President Donald Trump, who has made clear he expects allies to drastically step up and increase their share of deterrence.
The nation moving to a floor of a three per cent spend on defence was a "prudent minimum", Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said.
He said the defence force had been "hollowed out", so the federal government could afford to invest in future capabilities which might be needed sooner than previously thought.
"Australia in broad terms now is looking rather underdone in terms of defence, having committed just over the 2 per cent GDP equivalent, which was the old NATO target, but that was for a different era," Dr Graham said.
"The narrative has been changed, both by US pressure and let's not forget also the primary factor, which is deteriorating security globally."
NATO members agreed to increase defence and security spending to five per cent of GDP.
But Spain objected to the pledge, prompting Mr Trump to threaten to punish the Iberian nation with a tougher trade deal.
Australia is also seeking to negotiate a reprieve from tariffs imposed by the US on imports, including a 50 per cent levy on steel and aluminium.
Mr Marles maintained Australia would stick with its own process, which involves the nation's defence spending increasing from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34.
"A very significant decision has been made here in relation to European defence spending and that is fundamentally a matter for NATO," he said.
"We'll continue to assess what our needs are going forward. As our prime minister has said, we will resource that."
Mr Marles did not meet with Mr Trump, or US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite intensive efforts by government officials to tee up a first face-to-face of an Australian minister with the US president.
Dr Graham said any embarrassment on Australia's part was mitigated by the limited representation of Asian partners at the summit.
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor reiterated the coalition's call for spending to lift to three per cent of the economy.
He took aim at Labor's failure to secure a meeting with Mr Trump, pointing to a flagged sit down with Xi Jinping.
"It seems that the prime minister is better able to get a meeting with the president of China than the president of the United States," Mr Taylor said.
But the defence minister did meet with his Ukrainian counterpart Rustem Umerov as Australia reaffirmed its support for Kyiv in its fight against Russia.
Mr Marles announced Australia will deploy a RAAF Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to Poland, in addition to 100 defence force personnel, to help provide visibility for key humanitarian and military supply routes into Ukraine.
The aircraft will be deployed for three months, concluding in November, and follows an earlier six-month deployment which was highly valued by the Ukrainians.
Australia announced new financial sanctions and travel bans on 37 individuals and seven financial entities involved in Russia's defence, energy, transport, insurance, electronics and finance sectors, as well as "promulgators of Russian disinformation and propaganda".
Mr Marles also signed an agreement with the NATO Support and Procurement Organisation, increasing co-operation in non-combat activities including logistics and capability acquisition.
with Reuters
Australia is standing firm against US pressure to lift defence spending but looks "underdone" as European leaders endorse a five per cent commitment of their gross domestic product to security.
On the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia would decide its spending levels to meet its military needs.
The move risks a rebuke from US President Donald Trump, who has made clear he expects allies to drastically step up and increase their share of deterrence.
The nation moving to a floor of a three per cent spend on defence was a "prudent minimum", Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said.
He said the defence force had been "hollowed out", so the federal government could afford to invest in future capabilities which might be needed sooner than previously thought.
"Australia in broad terms now is looking rather underdone in terms of defence, having committed just over the 2 per cent GDP equivalent, which was the old NATO target, but that was for a different era," Dr Graham said.
"The narrative has been changed, both by US pressure and let's not forget also the primary factor, which is deteriorating security globally."
NATO members agreed to increase defence and security spending to five per cent of GDP.
But Spain objected to the pledge, prompting Mr Trump to threaten to punish the Iberian nation with a tougher trade deal.
Australia is also seeking to negotiate a reprieve from tariffs imposed by the US on imports, including a 50 per cent levy on steel and aluminium.
Mr Marles maintained Australia would stick with its own process, which involves the nation's defence spending increasing from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34.
"A very significant decision has been made here in relation to European defence spending and that is fundamentally a matter for NATO," he said.
"We'll continue to assess what our needs are going forward. As our prime minister has said, we will resource that."
Mr Marles did not meet with Mr Trump, or US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite intensive efforts by government officials to tee up a first face-to-face of an Australian minister with the US president.
Dr Graham said any embarrassment on Australia's part was mitigated by the limited representation of Asian partners at the summit.
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor reiterated the coalition's call for spending to lift to three per cent of the economy.
He took aim at Labor's failure to secure a meeting with Mr Trump, pointing to a flagged sit down with Xi Jinping.
"It seems that the prime minister is better able to get a meeting with the president of China than the president of the United States," Mr Taylor said.
But the defence minister did meet with his Ukrainian counterpart Rustem Umerov as Australia reaffirmed its support for Kyiv in its fight against Russia.
Mr Marles announced Australia will deploy a RAAF Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to Poland, in addition to 100 defence force personnel, to help provide visibility for key humanitarian and military supply routes into Ukraine.
The aircraft will be deployed for three months, concluding in November, and follows an earlier six-month deployment which was highly valued by the Ukrainians.
Australia announced new financial sanctions and travel bans on 37 individuals and seven financial entities involved in Russia's defence, energy, transport, insurance, electronics and finance sectors, as well as "promulgators of Russian disinformation and propaganda".
Mr Marles also signed an agreement with the NATO Support and Procurement Organisation, increasing co-operation in non-combat activities including logistics and capability acquisition.
with Reuters
Australia is standing firm against US pressure to lift defence spending but looks "underdone" as European leaders endorse a five per cent commitment of their gross domestic product to security.
On the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia would decide its spending levels to meet its military needs.
The move risks a rebuke from US President Donald Trump, who has made clear he expects allies to drastically step up and increase their share of deterrence.
The nation moving to a floor of a three per cent spend on defence was a "prudent minimum", Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said.
He said the defence force had been "hollowed out", so the federal government could afford to invest in future capabilities which might be needed sooner than previously thought.
"Australia in broad terms now is looking rather underdone in terms of defence, having committed just over the 2 per cent GDP equivalent, which was the old NATO target, but that was for a different era," Dr Graham said.
"The narrative has been changed, both by US pressure and let's not forget also the primary factor, which is deteriorating security globally."
NATO members agreed to increase defence and security spending to five per cent of GDP.
But Spain objected to the pledge, prompting Mr Trump to threaten to punish the Iberian nation with a tougher trade deal.
Australia is also seeking to negotiate a reprieve from tariffs imposed by the US on imports, including a 50 per cent levy on steel and aluminium.
Mr Marles maintained Australia would stick with its own process, which involves the nation's defence spending increasing from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34.
"A very significant decision has been made here in relation to European defence spending and that is fundamentally a matter for NATO," he said.
"We'll continue to assess what our needs are going forward. As our prime minister has said, we will resource that."
Mr Marles did not meet with Mr Trump, or US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite intensive efforts by government officials to tee up a first face-to-face of an Australian minister with the US president.
Dr Graham said any embarrassment on Australia's part was mitigated by the limited representation of Asian partners at the summit.
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor reiterated the coalition's call for spending to lift to three per cent of the economy.
He took aim at Labor's failure to secure a meeting with Mr Trump, pointing to a flagged sit down with Xi Jinping.
"It seems that the prime minister is better able to get a meeting with the president of China than the president of the United States," Mr Taylor said.
But the defence minister did meet with his Ukrainian counterpart Rustem Umerov as Australia reaffirmed its support for Kyiv in its fight against Russia.
Mr Marles announced Australia will deploy a RAAF Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to Poland, in addition to 100 defence force personnel, to help provide visibility for key humanitarian and military supply routes into Ukraine.
The aircraft will be deployed for three months, concluding in November, and follows an earlier six-month deployment which was highly valued by the Ukrainians.
Australia announced new financial sanctions and travel bans on 37 individuals and seven financial entities involved in Russia's defence, energy, transport, insurance, electronics and finance sectors, as well as "promulgators of Russian disinformation and propaganda".
Mr Marles also signed an agreement with the NATO Support and Procurement Organisation, increasing co-operation in non-combat activities including logistics and capability acquisition.
with Reuters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Can Trump bomb Iran and still be 'America First'?
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump was elected on the promise of putting America first and staying out of foreign conflicts. So the US president's decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities caused the first and very public split among his Make America Great Again base with influential figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon leading the charge against it. Today, senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, Molly Ball, on the fighting MAGA factions and what it means for Trump. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Molly, there has been a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel war this week. Just tell me, how big a win is that for Donald Trump? Is Donald Trump a peacemaker? Molly Ball: That is certainly the impression he would like everyone to take away from this episode. I think we are all waiting to learn more about the results of this American intervention in the conflict between Israel and Iran before we can say for sure that that's the case. But the case being made by the Trump administration is that this was an overwhelming victory, that the United States got involved in a very limited fashion and was able to deploy overwhelming force to bring the parties to heel, to bring everyone to the negotiating table and force a very quick end to this conflict in a way that leaves everyone better off and leaves the nuclear threat from Iran potentially permanently, or at least in the very long term, disabled. I think the caution is that there's still a lot that we don't know about what is left of Iran's nuclear capabilities and whether this ceasefire will hold. But for now, as Trump was boasting in the Netherlands, the administration would like this to be seen as an overwhelming success. Donald Trump, U.S President: That had ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war. This ended that with a war. If we didn't take that out, they'd be fighting right now. Sam Hawley: All right, well, let's unpack how this all played out for Donald Trump and his MAGA base, because there really is a fascinating backstory to this. To understand it, it's good to remember that the MAGA movement is all about isolationism, making America great again, America first. Molly Ball: Well, on the one hand, yes. Trump has distinguished himself among Republicans by being relatively skeptical of the use of military force, and in particular, being a very harsh critic of the wars that the US was still somewhat embroiled in when he began campaigning for president in 2015, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was very critical of the administration, former President George W. Bush, for going into Iraq under what he, and I think most people would term, false pretenses. Donald Trump, 2015: And I said, if you go after one or the other, in this case, Iraq, you're going to destabilize the Middle East. That's what's gonna happen. You're gonna destabilize the Middle East. And that's exactly what happened. We totally destabilized the Middle East. We have now migrations, largely because of what's happened afterwards. You know, Iraq was horrible. It was stupid to go in. We should have never gone in. Molly Ball: He also vowed to pull the United States out of Afghanistan, although it was his successor, Joe Biden, who ended up rather messily completing that task. And he has consistently said that he believes in peace. He doesn't believe in nation building or expending American resources on fighting other countries' battles abroad. I think he and many of his allies would argue that he is not an isolationist per se, but he stands for America first, which means that we only become involved when we see it in our clear national interest to do so. And there's a skepticism of multilateralism and of large-scale foreign alliances that of course we've seen play out over both of Trump's terms. Sam Hawley: Well, let's Molly, step through how all this played out. When Israel first started its strikes on Iran on the 13th of June, Donald Trump's administration was really like, we have nothing to do with this. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stressed that Israel was acting on its own. Just remind me about the initial response. Molly Ball: That's right. It was this very interesting dance that played out where at first it did appear that the administration wanted to separate itself from what was happening. And this came after some weeks, if not months, of Trump seeming to distance himself from Israel and from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Trump recently took his first foreign trip to the Middle East. He went to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, but he did not visit Israel, as is somewhat traditional for American presidents to do. So the initial impression of what was unfolding in the Middle East was that the administration was distant from this and was even potentially disapproving of it. We've subsequently reported that there was a lot of discussion and argument within the administration between different officials who had different views of the conflict. But it was only a matter of hours until Trump himself weighed in. And he seemed much more eager than his own Secretary of State to sort of take ownership of what was happening. He was saying no, no, that he had spoken to Netanyahu before this happened, that he approved of what was happening and viewed the US as much more of a partner in the conflict. So those early signals turned out to have been a bit of a red herring. Sam Hawley: So then Trump grows more publicly supportive of the Israeli strikes. And at that point, it becomes pretty clear, doesn't it, that there's a split emerging in the MAGA world. And there are these two factions. Just explain those. Molly Ball: You know, for many in Trump's political base, I'm thinking of extremely Trump loyal politicians, elected officials, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Congresswoman from Georgia. She spoke very strongly against any kind of American involvement. The media personality, podcaster Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, who of course is very close to Trump and introduced him at the Republican convention last summer, also spoke very strongly against what was happening as well as the sort of MAGA propagandist and former Trump White House strategist, Steve Bannon. So you did have these very prominent forces who are seen as sort of speaking for the populist nationalist Trump ideology, who were all counseling very strongly against any kind of American involvement. Sam Hawley: So these figures, Molly, they're going pretty hard against America getting involved in this conflict between Israel and Iran. You mentioned, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a big supporter of Donald Trump's. She was on CNN. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Congresswoman : The MAGA is not a cult and I'm entitled to my own opinion. I can support the president at the same time as I say, I don't think we should have foreign wars. Sam Hawley: And she also appeared on Steve Bannon's podcast, War Room. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Congresswoman : Six months in, six months in, Steve, and here we are, turning back on the campaign promises and we bombed Iran on behalf of Israel. Yes, it was on behalf of Israel. And you wanna know the people that are cheering it on right now? Their tune is going to drastically change the minute we start seeing flag-draped coffins. Sam Hawley: And there was this exchange between Tucker Carlson on his podcast with the Republican Ted Cruz. Tucker Carlson, podcast host: How many people live in Iran, by the way? Ted Cruz, US Senator: I don't know the population. Tucker Carlson, podcast host: At all? Ted Cruz, US Senator: No, I don't know the population. Yeah, I- Tucker Carlson, podcast host: How could you not know that? Ted Cruz, US Senator: I don't sit around memorising population tables. Tucker Carlson, podcast host: Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Sam Hawley: They're really not holding back. Molly Ball: That's right. I think these are also voices that have tended to be a bit more skeptical of the American relationship with Israel than many in the Republican Party and on the right have traditionally been. On the other hand, you know, other voices both in the political movement and certainly in the administration were counseling that this was something that we should be involved in, you know, reminding Trump that he has always said for many years that for Iran to have a nuclear weapon would be bad for the United States, bad for Israel, and bad for the world. And this was invoked by Trump repeatedly as he began to accelerate his threats toward the Iranians, talking about the ultimatum that he had given for the negotiation of a new nuclear deal, which had elapsed and which he said was the reason that the Israeli strikes were happening when they did, and basically saying that if they weren't going to negotiate, this was going to be the consequence. And then there was this period of waiting where it wasn't at all clear what he was going to do. And he in fact came out and said, nobody knows what I'm going to do. And the world was sort of on tender hooks for about a week. Sam Hawley: So on the one side, there's these isolationists, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and then of course on the other side, there's this deeply pro-Israel camp. A fascinating split though, right, in the MAGA world. Molly Ball: It is a fascinating split, although in retrospect, it looks perhaps less significant if it does turn out to be the case that this was simply a matter of a limited strike and not, you know, a years-long American-involvement in a new war. I think it's a very interesting point. in terms of the American involvement in a new war. I think if that were what was happening, we would see much more dissent. If all it was was an airstrike, I think very few people would ever have argued that America first means that the United States never deploys any kind of military force. And indeed in Trump's first term, there were several occasions in which he deployed American military force, but the point is that there are not ground troops, there are not Americans dying in another country, and there is not a prolonged entanglement in a foreign conflict. So I think everyone's being cautious and wary and wants to see how this plays out, but if in fact that was the end of it, then I don't think there's a lot of hurt feelings on either side. Sam Hawley: Yeah, although there was a fair bit of concern, wasn't there, when Trump then went a bit further and started talking about the idea of regime change in Iran? Molly Ball: Well, regime change is very much what the America first movement is against. It's sort of a part and parcel of the nationalism that Trump and his allies believe in, that countries should look out for their own interests and should not be fighting the battles of others and recklessly spill American blood and treasure. I think if you did have the United States setting out to change the Iranian regime, you would likely have much more dissent from MAGA World. If he then embarked on something that looked similar to those regime change wars of the past, he would come in for quite a bit of criticism. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Molly, the MAGA base that supported his actions say he should get a Nobel Peace Prize. I think that's what Donald Trump would really like. But if the strikes didn't actually obliterate Iran's nuclear program and there is deep uncertainty over whether or not they did, there'd still be, wouldn't there, some seemingly unhappy people within MAGA? Or do they just let that go? Molly Ball: I think that remains to be seen. I think the lodestar of the MAGA movement is and will always be Donald Trump. His critics would call it a cult of personality, but they believe very deeply in his wisdom and his decision making. So there is a lot of trust in him. There is a lot of willingness to be guided by what he sees as best and by the arguments that he makes, even when they can sometimes be quite inconsistent. I think we're all waiting to learn more about what the end result of all this has been and how tenuous this momentary peace actually is. Trump has said many times that he wants and believes he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, whether that's because of the competitiveness that he feels with former President Obama or simply a manifestation of his rather sizable ego. But if it does turn out that this is the beginning of a lasting peace in the Middle East, it sounds far-fetched, but that would certainly be a remarkable thing if it were to happen. Sam Hawley: And what about those early critics, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Molly, we do know that Donald Trump likes to surround himself with true loyalists. So is he really going to keep them in the fold or would he prefer them not to be there anymore? What do you reckon? Molly Ball: I don't think anybody's getting exiled or kicked out of the movement for this. And I think a vigorous debate was had that was quite interesting and quite revealing about the sort of contours of the Trump movement. But at the end of the day, people come and go from Trump's orbit, but as long as he feels that they ultimately believe in what he believes in and have his sort of political best interests at heart, he doesn't tend to kick them out. Sam Hawley: Molly Ball is a senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.


Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
S&P 500, Nasdaq near record highs, eyes on rate cuts
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq are heading toward record highs, as President Donald Trump's growing frustration with the Federal Reserve's wait-and-watch stance on cutting interest rates fueled bets of more monetary policy easing ahead. A Wall Street Journal report said Trump has mulled picking Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's replacement early, by September or October, after repeatedly criticising him for not cutting interest rates sooner. Traders now price in a nearly 25 per cent chance of the Fed cutting rates in July, compared with 12.5 per cent last week, according to CME Group's FedWatch tool. The benchmark S&P 500 was trading 0.5 per cent below its record peak on Thursday, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq was about 0.7 per cent below its all-time highs, with risk appetite revived by a truce in the Middle East conflict earlier this week. The Nasdaq 100 - a subset of the Nasdaq composite index - touched an intraday record high. Economic data was mixed. The final reading from the US Commerce Department showed gross domestic product contracted 0.5 per cent in the first quarter. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a 0.2 per cent contraction. "A 0.5 per cent contraction is worse than expected, but that really reflects how much imports overwhelmed exports in the first quarter, as businesses and consumers tried to get ahead of the tariff program," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research. Separately, a report for weekly jobless claims showed the number of Americans filing new applications for jobless benefits fell last week. Fed San Francisco President Mary Daly said she's seeing increasing evidence that tariffs may not lead to a large or sustained inflation surge, helping bolster the case for a rate cut in the fall, Bloomberg News reported. The Personal Consumption Expenditures report on Friday - the Fed's preferred gauge of inflation - will be scrutinised to ascertain tariff-induced price changes in the US economy. In early trading on Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 149.52 points, or 0.35 per cent, to 43,133.31, the S&P 500 gained 23.61 points, or 0.39 per cent, to 6,115.77 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 83.54 points, or 0.42 per cent, to 20,056.37. Ten of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors rose. Materials led gains with a 0.8 per cent rise. On the flip side, real estate stocks lost 0.8 per cent. Nvidia rose one per cent after scaling a fresh all-time high on Wednesday. Shares of sportswear company Nike edged up 0.8 per cent ahead of its quarterly results. Copper miners gained after the red metal's prices jumped to a three-month high. Freeport Mcmoran rose six per cent and Southern Copper advanced 6.3 per cent. Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 3.01-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.56-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 23 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 44 new highs and 29 new lows.

Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Credible intelligence' of severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites: CIA
Washington: The CIA says there is credible intelligence that Iran's nuclear program was severely damaged by US bombing, citing new information from reliable sources, as US President Donald Trump stepped up his attacks on reporters who have queried the extent of the destruction. It came as the Trump administration provided slightly more details about the damage it claims was done, saying a uranium conversion facility at Isfahan in central Iran had been 'wiped out'. Trump said the US believed Iran had been unable to move out uranium stockpiles and other equipment before the attack. The administration also moved to dampen scepticism about the efficacy of the strikes by scheduling a news conference at the Pentagon on Thursday morning (10pm Thursday AEST) that Trump said would provide 'irrefutable' evidence of the mission's success, as well as a private briefing for members of Congress. Trump again dismissed a preliminary report from the Defence Intelligence Agency, an arm of the Pentagon, which said it was plausible the sites hit by the US were only partially damaged. Loading 'Since then, we've collected additional intelligence. We've also spoken to people who've seen the site, and the site is obliterated. And we think everything nuclear is down there, they didn't take it out,' he told a news conference after the NATO summit in the Netherlands. 'We think we hit them so hard and so fast, they didn't get to move [the material]. It's very, very heavy, it's very, very hard to move. They were way down, they were literally 30 to 35 storeys down underground. 'We think it's covered with granite, concrete and steel.'