Is Donald Trump following Australia's lead on pharmaceuticals?
ABC chief business correspondent Ian Verrender explains Donald Trump's executive order on pharmaceuticals and what the tariff pause between the US and China means for businesses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump fantasises about being king and he doesn't care which rules he breaks to become one
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has been testing his power. He has ignored court orders, fired civil servants, limited journalist access to the White House because they refused to change their editorial stances and he has accepted a 747 from a Gulf autocrat. But the past few weeks have felt like something in the wind is shifting as Trump lashes out. Ever since his high-profile break-up with Elon Musk, he has been on a tear to test his own power. The protests in Los Angeles have been largely peaceful: any violence and looting has been well within the militarised capabilities of the LAPD. And yet, Trump federalised the National Guard above the wishes of a state governor and a city mayor, something that hadn't been done since LBJ used the same power to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s as schools in Alabama were desegregated. This weekend's military parade feels like it's from the same place as Trump looks to project a kind of machismo in a display that would feel more suited to the streets of Moscow than Washington. He has called for the 'liberation' of Los Angeles in language that smacks of the rhetoric of the Bush family's adventurism around the Middle East to liberate countries from any government mildly critical of the United States. America, for all of its nationalism and patriotism, has never been fond of these kinds of military parades, certainly not since the end of World War II. Tanks rolling through the streets on the president's birthday do not seem to follow in the country whose existence is tied to the overthrow of an all-powerful king. The army that was notionally being celebrated was founded explicitly to prevent any one person from having too much power over the nation. And that is the kind of power that Trump is exploring. When he posted a graphic in February of himself in a crown, the caption reading 'long live the king', he was engaging in a fantasy he's long had, living in his gilded Oval Office and the rich trappings of the fanciful old monarchies. He paraded troops through a sparse crowd in DC, a powerful juxtaposition of the US soldiers deployed to harass lawful protesters in Los Angeles. He is unafraid to use the military for his own gain. Just last week, he stood in front of a stand of soldiers at Fort Bragg, selected for their political beliefs and physical appearance, and used them as a prop in his political theatre, defying long-held conventions and rules against the military being involved in partisan politics. No uniformed member of the US military can participate in anything political, something long cherished in the US. But Trump sees the military only as a projection of the kind of strength that his brand of politics admires, and he's willing to break the rules to claim that mantle. Trump is testing the limits of his power. He is defying court orders that block him from deporting legal residents, and his administration does so anyway. He is silencing protesters with shows of overwhelming force. A US senator has been kicked out and handcuffed for trying to ask questions of the people in charge of the immigration crackdowns that are tearing through American society.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Trump fantasises about being king and he doesn't care which rules he breaks to become one
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has been testing his power. He has ignored court orders, fired civil servants, limited journalist access to the White House because they refused to change their editorial stances and he has accepted a 747 from a Gulf autocrat. But the past few weeks have felt like something in the wind is shifting as Trump lashes out. Ever since his high-profile break-up with Elon Musk, he has been on a tear to test his own power. The protests in Los Angeles have been largely peaceful: any violence and looting has been well within the militarised capabilities of the LAPD. And yet, Trump federalised the National Guard above the wishes of a state governor and a city mayor, something that hadn't been done since LBJ used the same power to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s as schools in Alabama were desegregated. This weekend's military parade feels like it's from the same place as Trump looks to project a kind of machismo in a display that would feel more suited to the streets of Moscow than Washington. He has called for the 'liberation' of Los Angeles in language that smacks of the rhetoric of the Bush family's adventurism around the Middle East to liberate countries from any government mildly critical of the United States. America, for all of its nationalism and patriotism, has never been fond of these kinds of military parades, certainly not since the end of World War II. Tanks rolling through the streets on the president's birthday do not seem to follow in the country whose existence is tied to the overthrow of an all-powerful king. The army that was notionally being celebrated was founded explicitly to prevent any one person from having too much power over the nation. And that is the kind of power that Trump is exploring. When he posted a graphic in February of himself in a crown, the caption reading 'long live the king', he was engaging in a fantasy he's long had, living in his gilded Oval Office and the rich trappings of the fanciful old monarchies. He paraded troops through a sparse crowd in DC, a powerful juxtaposition of the US soldiers deployed to harass lawful protesters in Los Angeles. He is unafraid to use the military for his own gain. Just last week, he stood in front of a stand of soldiers at Fort Bragg, selected for their political beliefs and physical appearance, and used them as a prop in his political theatre, defying long-held conventions and rules against the military being involved in partisan politics. No uniformed member of the US military can participate in anything political, something long cherished in the US. But Trump sees the military only as a projection of the kind of strength that his brand of politics admires, and he's willing to break the rules to claim that mantle. Trump is testing the limits of his power. He is defying court orders that block him from deporting legal residents, and his administration does so anyway. He is silencing protesters with shows of overwhelming force. A US senator has been kicked out and handcuffed for trying to ask questions of the people in charge of the immigration crackdowns that are tearing through American society.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump's 'America first' review, US and UK experts warn
Key defence figures on both sides of the Atlantic warn the risks to AUKUS run deeper than whether a review finds Australia's biggest ever defence deal is "America first" enough for Donald Trump. They've told Four Corners of the damage being done to decades-old alliances by Mr Trump's unpredictability and contempt for the US's allies, the UK's increasing focus on Europe, and concerns neither country has the capability to deliver the submarines on time or on budget. With Australia's allies holding all the cards, and our Indo-Pacific defence strategy at stake, it's possible we could be left billions out of pocket, without submarines, and with one of our oldest alliances in tatters. Even before the US decided to review the deal, a senior member of the country's powerful Armed Services Committee was warning Mr Trump's "idiotic" and "bullying" behaviour towards allies presented risks to the alliance with Australia. The US president has repeatedly said that he regards Canada as the "51st state", while his belittling of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February shocked American allies around the world. Mr Trump has also threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal and has not ruled out military force to wrest Greenland from Denmark. The House Armed Services Committee's highest-ranking Democrat, congressman Adam Smith, said Canberra had reason to be concerned about whether "the strong partnership between the US and Australia will remain". "I cannot possibly be critical enough of the way the Trump administration has treated our partners and allies since they were elected … it's really stupid," he said. "Their contempt for allies and partners has the potential, not just to undermine the AUKUS agreement, but to undermine the very national security of the United States of America." Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also fears that Mr Trump has undermined America's standing with its allies and partners. "I think this is a great source of alarm," Mr Sullivan, who served in the role under president Joe Biden, told Four Corners. "The direction of travel right now is quite disturbing." Mr Sullivan said he understood why allies such as Australia, may be wondering where they stand with the US president. "I'm not sure that [Mr Trump's] looking for territory Down Under … not to make light of it," Mr Sullivan said. Key voices in the UK, the third alliance partner, are also troubled about the implications for AUKUS. Former Royal Navy admiral Alan West said, "dear old Trump coming in, that has … stood everyone on their heads really". "Things that we absolutely took as a certainty are no longer a certainty," said Lord West, formerly the official who oversaw the Royal Navy's operations. "What he's been saying about Canada [being the 51st state] is outrageous actually. It's like stamping on a fluffy bunny really, isn't it? It's just terrible." Under the AUKUS agreement the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s. But it's not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia. To meet its targets the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It's only making 1.2 a year. Christopher Miller, who served as the acting Defense Secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is "moving too slow". "I think probably most of that's on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you," Mr Miller said. "The problem is we don't have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required." Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal. "But I'm hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It'll put pressure to solve that problem," Mr Smith said. Earlier this year Australia's Defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It's the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry. The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal. "That is the United States Navy's job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed," Vice Admiral Hammond said. "They're being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I've got every reason to believe they will succeed." The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS includes ensuring it is "aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda" and that "the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". AUKUS critics, like the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy's submarine squadron, Peter Briggs, warn that Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs. "This is a good deal for the Americans," Mr Briggs said. "If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it." Under the United States' AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America's undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place. Jake Sullivan is confident that whoever is president when the certification has to take place will honour the deal. "If the US woke up one day and decided it was not going to follow through on AUKUS, could it do that in reality? Yes, of course," Mr Sullivan said. But he said the AUKUS deal ultimately benefits both sides, and added that the US and Australia have long had a relationship of trust and sticking to agreements. The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US. Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power. "It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan," he said at the time. That view isn't shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump. "We're not 'giving them away'. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia," Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners. He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific. "That's a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world." The prospect of "leverage" concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia's sovereignty. Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan. "You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not," Mr Briggs said. Vice Admiral Hammond said just because Australia would be using US technology didn't mean our sovereignty would be challenged. "I think it just rings a little hollow," he said. "I know that there are critics out there who believe that this technology is so exquisite, it shouldn't be gifted or sold unless there was a guarantee associated with it. That hasn't been part of the program to date." Mr Trump's approach to diplomacy and the US's lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS. Under the plan the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia. But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home. Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country's defence priorities. Sir Michael Fallon, who served as the UK's defence secretary from 2014 to 2017, is a strong supporter of the AUKUS alliance. "A lot has changed. We've had our own continent invaded by Russia. Something that I don't think every anybody properly predicted," Sir Michael said. "The challenges have grown. The world has got more dangerous." Mr Trump has made it clear that Europe is no longer Washington's first priority, warning this year that the US may not protect NATO members who were not paying enough for their own defence. In response, the UK and other European nations have scrambled to re-prioritise trillions in spending to beef up their armed forces and defences. A review of the UK's defence strategy released this month committed to getting up to 12 SSN-AUKUS attack submarines in the water on schedule. But it has also pointed to a strategic shift caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the need for what the review calls a "NATO first" policy. "While Britain, of course, has important relations with Australia, the centre of gravity of the country's security is in Europe," former UK National Security Adviser Peter Ricketts said. "I think the whole context in which the AUKUS deal was struck has changed and has changed Europe. I don't think it's going to go back. I think we are now going to be spending and focusing on our security in Europe for the foreseeable future." The US isn't alone in struggling with submarine production. Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently does not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time. "They're not there yet. We've got to have a really major training program in terms of shipyard ability and also in terms of the nuclear ability," Lord West said. "The trouble is with huge complex programs like building nuclear submarines, you know, it's not like building a shirt for Marks and Spencer. I mean, the length of time is huge." Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget. "I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected," he said. "Australia has to expect that the timelines that are now drawn are bound to string out." The final stage of the deal involves Australia starting its own production line of SSN-AUKUS subs. Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, who heads the Australian agency tasked with overseeing the AUKUS program said the SSN-AUKUS subs are on track. "We're absolutely committed to building our own nuclear-powered submarine and having that delivered in the early 2040s. That is our plan. That is our commitment," Vice Admiral Mead said. "I'm not underestimating the complexity of this. This is the most demanding technological and industrial undertaking that any government in Australia has embarked upon. This will be probably the most complex engineering feat in the world." Watch Four Corners's full investigation, Submerged, tonight from 8:30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.
