UK makes plans to welcome Albanese to London
The UK government is making plans to welcome Anthony Albanese to London on a visit that could come as soon as next week if he attends Tuesday's NATO summit in the Netherlands.
The behind-the-scenes work to prepare for Albanese is the strongest sign yet that he will attend next week's summit, which could provide a chance to make up for his failed attempt to meet Donald Trump in Canada.
Sources familiar with the preparations, who were not authorised to speak publicly, said Albanese had not yet decided whether to attend the NATO event in The Hague in part because he is wary of Trump cancelling again.
The prime minister's office and the British High Commission to Australia have been contacted for comment.
Trump departed Canada's G7 early on Wednesday to deal with the crisis in the Middle East, meaning Albanese's first face-to-face meeting with the president was cancelled.
The blow has been repeatedly brushed off by Albanese and his ministers as leaders of Mexico, India, South Korea, Ukraine, and other countries also had meetings cancelled.
Australia's ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, is leading a diplomatic push to lock in a meeting for Albanese with Trump in Europe next week as the prime minister ponders attending the NATO event.
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was originally expected to attend, however, Albanese changed his mind and said he could go. 'Yes, that's being considered,' he told reporters.
The decision remains a dilemma for Albanese as the risk of Trump cancelling a second time could hurt the prime minister politically.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
42 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump meeting on backburner with PM to skip summit
The prime minister will wait a little longer for a second-chance meeting with Donald Trump as the president pushes out his timeline to act on the situation in the Middle East. Anthony Albanese will not go to The Hague for next week's NATO summit, with his deputy Richard Marles to represent Australia at the event as originally planned. Mr Albanese was considering making a last-minute dash to the talks, which could have provided an opportunity to meet in person with the US president. The pair had been scheduled to hold their first face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada earlier this week. But 24 hours before they were due to meet, Mr Trump revealed he would leave the event early to deal with escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. The prime minister is keen to meet with Mr Trump to try to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs, advocate for the nation's nuclear submarine deal with the US and UK and discuss defence spending. Mr Trump is expected to attend the NATO summit, but there is no guarantee he will not pull out at the last second amid volatility in the Middle East. The US president on Friday said he would decide whether to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict "within the next two weeks". Liberal senator James Paterson earlier said the prime minister should attend NATO regardless of whether he meets with Mr Trump. He believes it would allow Mr Albanese to co-ordinate with allies and help support Ukraine in its war against Russia. It would also present an opportunity to discuss the situation in Iran with European partners, and discuss defence spending. "If he meets with President Trump on the sidelines, that would be a bonus," Senator Paterson said. "But frankly, I think his approach of now waiting seven months to go and see the president and not going to see him in Washington DC, relying on a chance meeting on the sidelines of an international forum, is a very risky strategy." The prime minister wasn't the only world leader left hanging at the G7. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenskiy also had talks scheduled with Mr Trump the day after he left. Mr Albanese met with senior members of the president's economic team including US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, US National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The talks involved trade, tariffs and critical minerals - which Australia has considered using as a bargaining chip in US tariff negotiations.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Court lets Trump keep National Guard troops in LA
An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump has delayed making a decision on attacking Iran. What's his strategy?
Deal-making? Decisive? Dithering? Or just momentarily deferred? Everyone will take their pick trying to determine why Donald Trump has bought himself time to make the most consequential decision a US president can make — whether to plunge his forces into another foreign conflict of unknown risk and uncertain duration. As ever with Trump pronouncements, there's a little something in this for everyone. "Within the next two weeks" is a timeline vague enough to simultaneously exasperate the Netanyahu government, confound the Iranian leadership, delight nervous allies and bewilder financial markets. On the domestic front, it could prolong the civil skirmish among Republican MAGA (Make America Great Again) forces over whether armed conflict passes as a form of American "greatness" or not these days. Why the US president settled on a timeline of an ill-defined decision-making period of anywhere between one and 14 days is anyone's guess. Make no mistake, leaders and officials in almost every government, not to mention military and foreign policy analysts the world over, are feverishly making their best guesses right now. So here are a few entries to guide this global guessing game. Trump is taking strategic and tactical ambiguity to a new level and has been for days. Earlier this week on the South Lawn of the White House, we probably got the most revealing insight into his mindset when asked by reporters about direct US military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. In any event, he scoffed at publicly telegraphing any decision he may make on bombing missions in Iran so that the world's media could "be there and watch". The obvious conclusion is that advance notice would not be given. This, at least, would be consistent with the approach taken by most commanders in chief — think George W. Bush in Iraq, Obama on killing Osama bin Laden, or more recently, Biden's authorised strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen. Taking the current president at his word, we're not likely to know until after US forces have fired any shots. If they never do, we may be left to deduce ourselves whether this was the result of an active decision Trump took, or a passive one that passed with the moment into the mists of time. The White House has offered very limited reasoning on the significance of the time allocated for extra presidential musing. The clearest explanation for settling on it was offered was by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who's suggested two weeks is the difference between an latent nuclear weapon program and an active one. "Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that," she said. "And it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would of course pose an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world." A US deferral carries with it no apparent obligations on Israel or Iran to cease their missile assaults on one other. It does allow time for diplomacy to do its work. According to the Reuters news agency, that work's been quietly going on in the background throughout the week since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion with its attacks on Iran. Quoting diplomatic sources, Reuters has reported that Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi"have spoken several times by phone" during the week. Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hitting the phones to counterparts from Canberra to Paris, trying to build consensus around a campaign of maximum pressure on the Iranians. Through another channel, the so-called "E3" group of European foreign ministers from Germany, France and the UK are holding their own in-person talks with Araghchi in Geneva to explore a possible nuclear deal. Crucially, any extra time available also allows the Pentagon to ready its plans, forces, weapons, ships, planes and intelligence for potential strikes. Despite his ambiguity, those strikes deliberately and firmly remain as options underpinning the US president's prolonged timeline. Israel's Operation Rising Lion, together with Tehran's ferocious missile response, has already proved costly in lives, injuries and damage inflicted in both countries, but ripples into the broader global economy have so far been minimised. Oil prices are marginally up by about 3 per cent and shipments are still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, regardless of Iranian threats to blockade it if necessary. As they've proven before, ongoing uncertainty about military escalation doesn't mean financial markets will remain calm or rationally in an extended "holding pattern". The White House seems to be alert to the brittleness of oil pricing, with Leavitt giving an assurance that Trump is "paying attention and monitoring that". It's prudent to consider oil price sensitivities because it's via the fuel tank and the family budget that many Americans will decide on the merit or folly of another foreign military venture. The possibility of direct US miliary involvement is tearing at the seams of the MAGA movement which has twice propelled Trump to office on a foreign policy of war avoidance. "America First" is the guiding principle behind MAGA's approach to all things defence and security related. The idea that after only five months in the White House their president might see greatness in the deployment of a "bunker-busting" bomb half a world away in the interests of what they call "neo-con warmongers" is staggeringly incomprehensible to keepers of the flame, like commentator Tucker Carlson and Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. They're pitched against more hawkish pro-Israeli Republican figures including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Texas senator Ted Cruz. Perhaps unintentionally, Cruz exposed the size of the rift within the MAGA clan in a combative on-camera interview with Carlson, revealing that for all his swagger, the Texan knew dangerously little about the foe he would have bombed into nuclear submission — unable to place any figure on simple facts including Iran's population. The internal MAGA fight might cause Trump some political discomfort at home, but he's just guaranteed the combatants can slug it out for a couple more weeks, or longer, until he makes a final decision.
