FBI left key evidence on 'cutting room floor' in Hillary Clinton probe, new report claims
"This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI's investigation of former Secretary Clinton's email usage and mishandling of highly classified information," Grassley said in a Monday press release.
"Under Comey's leadership, the FBI failed to perform fundamental investigative work and left key pieces of evidence on the cutting room floor," he continued.
"The Comey FBI's negligent approach and perhaps intentional lack of effort in the Clinton investigation is a stark contrast to its full-throated investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which was based on the uncorroborated and now discredited Steele dossier. Comey's decision-making process smacks of political infection."
Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, was investigated by the FBI over claims she improperly stored or transmitted classified materials on a private email server.
The FBI advised the Department of Justice in 2016, ahead of that year's massive election that pitted Clinton against future President Donald Trump, that Clinton should not face prosecution over the matter.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," then-FBI director James Comey said in a press release.
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
Grassley specifically released declassified materials from the "Clinton annex," which is an appendix to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General's 2018 report that reviewed the DOJ and FBI's handling of the Clinton investigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi, and other Trump administration leaders at other agencies, declassified the materials and delivered them to Grassley at his request, his press release reported.
The documents claim that then-FBI Director Comey, as well as other FBI leaders, obtained thumb drives related to their investigation into Clinton, but that the agency failed "to perform additional, targeted searches of the drives," according to Grassley's office.
The thumb drives reportedly were never reviewed during the investigation, but "contained highly sensitive information exfiltrated from U.S. government agencies, including the Department of State, as well as then-President Barack Obama's emails and, potentially, congressional information."
The FBI also obtained intelligence that alleged communications between Florida Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who served as Democratic National Committee chair until July 2016 when she resigned, and individuals who worked for the Soros Open Society Foundations, which was founded by left-wing billionaire donor George Soros.
"The intelligence reports alleged that the Obama administration took efforts to scuttle the investigation into Clinton and protect her candidacy," Grassley's release reported, but that the FBI at the time did "not make serious investigative efforts" into the intelligence reports.
Fox News Digital reached out to Clinton's office, Wasserman Schultz's office, the Soros Open Society Foundations and the Kettering Foundation, where Comey currently works as a senior fellow, for comment on Grassley's release, but did not immediately receive replies.
"I warned years ago that the Clinton investigation failed to hit the mark, and I'm grateful the American people can finally see the facts for themselves," Grassley said in the press release.
"After nearly a decade in the shadows, this information is now coming to light thanks to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel's dedicated efforts to fulfill my congressional request.
"I appreciate their ongoing commitment to transparency and strongly urge them to continue to fully review this matter, including its national security impact," he said.
Grassley's release follows Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's bombshell claims that Obama-era officials reportedly "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Gabbard released unclassified documents Friday that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that then-President Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump-Russia collusion probe after Trump's election win against Clinton in 2016.
"Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people," Gabbard had posted to X on Friday regarding the criminal referral. "No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it. We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral."
Fox News confirmed earlier Monday that the DOJ received Gabbard's criminal referral related to the matter but did not share additional comment.
Originally published as FBI left key evidence on 'cutting room floor' in Hillary Clinton probe, new report claims
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Australia, UK to ink 50-year deal to underpin AUKUS
Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has put USA back on top. Australia should follow his lead
Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
A China shock 2.0 is emerging to rock America
Yet instead of pursuing the policies needed to meet this threat head-on, the MAGA agenda is heavily focused on fighting the last war – on bringing manufacturing jobs lost to China and elsewhere back to the US. The challenge, Autor and Hanson argue, is not that of attempting to resuscitate the industrial might of a bygone age, but ensuring that the US is front and centre of the new technologies and able to convincingly harness them to its own ends. This endeavour is not obviously helped by Trump's scattergun approach to tariffs, punishing friend and foe alike, his propensity to alienate rather than co-operate with allies, the stupefying attacks on scientific research and the repudiation of foreign talent – once the very lifeblood of American advancement. Nor is it helped by the administration's casual disregard for the great asset of dollar hegemony which, bizarrely, Stephen Miran, Trump's chief economic adviser, seems to regard as in some way partly responsible for America's de-industrialisation. An administration seemingly hell-bent on fiscal ruin, and on weakening the dollar for the purposes of making US goods more competitive, doesn't exactly inspire international confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency asset. Loading China, by contrast, is investing heavily in the digital yuan as a way of internationalising its own currency, of offering an alternative to the fool's gold of cryptocurrency and of usurping the dollar for cross-border payments. Already, it is making steady progress. Why any longer should Brazil use the dollar for selling soybeans to China when Trump threatens the country with punitive tariffs for the sin of prosecuting his friend, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president? Why indeed should it employ the dollar at all when the US regularly uses its power for extraterritorial purposes? In the developing world, Western influence is waning fast; China has been quick and single-minded at moving into its place. China has many problems and challenges, from the demographic to the still-deflating credit and property bubbles. But its catch-up and overtake approach to the technologies of the future is already paying big dividends. As, too, is the aggressive expansion of China's universities sector, originally begun under Jiang Zemin's presidency in the late 1990s, and heavily focused on Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US-led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies as recently as 2007, judged by share of the world's most-cited research, while China led the US in three. However, by 2023, these rankings were reversed, with China leading in 57 of 64 key technologies, and the US in seven. 'China has built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains,' the ASPI says. All of the world's top 10 research institutions in some technologies are based in China, and are already collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. Now, globally recognised companies at the forefront of their industries – such as Huawei in telecommunications, BYD in electric vehicles and Longi in solar wafers – have come from nowhere in less than 30 years to achieve world-leading positions. Industrial policy in China has, moreover, deliberately targeted key choke points in the supply chain, such that the US was this week forced to abandon its ban on the export of H20 Nvidia chips to China in return for China lifting similar export restrictions on the rare earth minerals vital to many hi-tech industries. The Nvidia ban was completely pointless in any case, serving only to turbocharge Chinese attempts to develop alternatives. Autor and Hanson suggest that the correct response to the China 2.0 shock is for the US to act in unison with commercial allies such as the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia and South Korea. Loading Counter-intuitively, Chinese companies should also be encouraged to set up production facilities in the US and elsewhere, rather similarly to the way that China once enticed Western companies to do the same in China as a way of speeding up technology transfer. Replicating Chinese industrial policy by aggressively promoting innovation in new fields, as happened in America and Europe during the Second World War, could also help narrow China's lead. It scarcely needs saying that Trump's America is at present doing the opposite of all these things. But just because Trump has got his head buried in the sand doesn't mean other nations should do the same. The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. If China gets there first, it will reshape the world in its own image, and 'the end of history' will look very different from the one outlined by Francis Fukuyama back in 1992, when he declared the final triumph of liberal democracy.
