Albo ‘understood' Trump snub: White House
The White House has claimed world leaders including Anthony Albanese who lost out on meetings with the President at the G7 earlier this month 'understood' the snub.
The Prime Minister was seeking to have his first face-to-face meeting with President Trump at the global meeting of world leaders in Canada.
But the meeting was abruptly cancelled when Trump left the G7 early to tackle problems in the Middle East.
Asked on Thursday evening if the President had plans to make up those meetings, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she thought 'many of those world leaders understood the situation happening in the Middle East and the urgency and the need for the President to get back to Washington to monitor that situation'.
'Obviously that was the right call considering the success of not only the operation on Saturday night, but also the ceasefire that the President has since brokered on behalf of not just our country but the entire world frankly.
'But he has made up a couple of those meetings and he has had direct phone calls with some of those leaders he was supposed to meet with as well.'
However, she acknowledged that 'not all' of those meetings have yet been made up.
The Australian and US leaders have not had a face-to-face meeting since Mr Trump's election seven months ago.
Mr Albanese said earlier this week in an interview on Sky News that he has 'agreed' with Mr Trump to have a meeting 'that will take place at a time that's convenient for both of us'.
'That will be a good thing,' Mr Albanese said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Lefties Losing It: Democrats freak out as Trump dominates on global stage
Sky News host Rita Panahi has reacted to Democrats freaking out as US President Donald Trump dominates on the global stage.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Blows to balancing Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
Congressional Republicans have removed the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill after a request by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Section 899 provision that was nixed would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging "unfair foreign taxes" on US companies. The measure was expected to lead many companies to avoid investing in the US out of concern that they could face steep taxes. But the removal of the provision adds a wrinkle to Republicans' plans to try to offset the cost of the massive said in an X post that he made the request to lawmakers after reaching an agreement with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal. He said that after "months of productive dialogue," they would "announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, said they would remove the provision. But, they noted, "Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation." The removal of the provision will provide "greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond," Bessent said in his post. An analysis by the Global Business Alliance, a trade group representing international companies such as Toyota and Nestlé, estimated that the provision would have cost the US 360,000 jobs and $55 billion annually over 10 years in lost gross domestic product. Republicans are rushing to finish the package this week to meet the president's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Earlier ,the Senate parliamentarian advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to the spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules. Guidance from the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is rarely ignored. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012, though GOP leaders dismissed those views. Instead, they worked to revise the various proposals. "We have contingency plans," said Majority Leader John Thune. Friday's expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that "we're ploughing forward." Democrats, who are unified against the package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers at the White House joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill. "We don't want to have grandstanders," Trump said of the GOP holdouts. At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump's first term, but will expire in December imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act. Senior Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes. Congressional Republicans have removed the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill after a request by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Section 899 provision that was nixed would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging "unfair foreign taxes" on US companies. The measure was expected to lead many companies to avoid investing in the US out of concern that they could face steep taxes. But the removal of the provision adds a wrinkle to Republicans' plans to try to offset the cost of the massive said in an X post that he made the request to lawmakers after reaching an agreement with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal. He said that after "months of productive dialogue," they would "announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, said they would remove the provision. But, they noted, "Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation." The removal of the provision will provide "greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond," Bessent said in his post. An analysis by the Global Business Alliance, a trade group representing international companies such as Toyota and Nestlé, estimated that the provision would have cost the US 360,000 jobs and $55 billion annually over 10 years in lost gross domestic product. Republicans are rushing to finish the package this week to meet the president's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Earlier ,the Senate parliamentarian advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to the spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules. Guidance from the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is rarely ignored. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012, though GOP leaders dismissed those views. Instead, they worked to revise the various proposals. "We have contingency plans," said Majority Leader John Thune. Friday's expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that "we're ploughing forward." Democrats, who are unified against the package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers at the White House joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill. "We don't want to have grandstanders," Trump said of the GOP holdouts. At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump's first term, but will expire in December imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act. Senior Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes. Congressional Republicans have removed the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill after a request by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Section 899 provision that was nixed would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging "unfair foreign taxes" on US companies. The measure was expected to lead many companies to avoid investing in the US out of concern that they could face steep taxes. But the removal of the provision adds a wrinkle to Republicans' plans to try to offset the cost of the massive said in an X post that he made the request to lawmakers after reaching an agreement with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal. He said that after "months of productive dialogue," they would "announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, said they would remove the provision. But, they noted, "Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation." The removal of the provision will provide "greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond," Bessent said in his post. An analysis by the Global Business Alliance, a trade group representing international companies such as Toyota and Nestlé, estimated that the provision would have cost the US 360,000 jobs and $55 billion annually over 10 years in lost gross domestic product. Republicans are rushing to finish the package this week to meet the president's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Earlier ,the Senate parliamentarian advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to the spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules. Guidance from the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is rarely ignored. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012, though GOP leaders dismissed those views. Instead, they worked to revise the various proposals. "We have contingency plans," said Majority Leader John Thune. Friday's expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that "we're ploughing forward." Democrats, who are unified against the package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers at the White House joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill. "We don't want to have grandstanders," Trump said of the GOP holdouts. At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump's first term, but will expire in December imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act. Senior Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes. Congressional Republicans have removed the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill after a request by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Section 899 provision that was nixed would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging "unfair foreign taxes" on US companies. The measure was expected to lead many companies to avoid investing in the US out of concern that they could face steep taxes. But the removal of the provision adds a wrinkle to Republicans' plans to try to offset the cost of the massive said in an X post that he made the request to lawmakers after reaching an agreement with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal. He said that after "months of productive dialogue," they would "announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, said they would remove the provision. But, they noted, "Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation." The removal of the provision will provide "greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond," Bessent said in his post. An analysis by the Global Business Alliance, a trade group representing international companies such as Toyota and Nestlé, estimated that the provision would have cost the US 360,000 jobs and $55 billion annually over 10 years in lost gross domestic product. Republicans are rushing to finish the package this week to meet the president's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Earlier ,the Senate parliamentarian advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to the spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules. Guidance from the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is rarely ignored. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012, though GOP leaders dismissed those views. Instead, they worked to revise the various proposals. "We have contingency plans," said Majority Leader John Thune. Friday's expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that "we're ploughing forward." Democrats, who are unified against the package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers at the White House joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill. "We don't want to have grandstanders," Trump said of the GOP holdouts. At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump's first term, but will expire in December imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act. Senior Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Super funds spared billions after US axes 'revenge tax'
Australian superannuation funds are breathing a sigh of relief after the US dropped a so-called "revenge tax" on foreign investors. The super industry had been ringing alarm bells over section 899 of President Donald Trump's proposed "big beautiful bill", which would have raised taxes by up to 15 percentage points on foreign entities in retaliation for "unfair taxes" imposed on the US by other countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday revealed the section would be removed from the bill after a deal was reached with the Group of Seven major industrialised nations, allowing it to drop a global minimum tax rate. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he posted on the social media platform X. "OECD Pillar Two taxes will not apply to U.S. companies, and we will work cooperatively to implement this agreement across the OECD-G20 Inclusive Framework in coming weeks and months. "Based on this progress and understanding, I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill." Australia had been an enthusiastic supporter of the OECD Pillar Two agreement, which sought to implement a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent and thereby limit multinationals from minimising taxes paid in Australia by shifting profits offshore. The US withdrawal from the project further complicates federal government efforts to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the removal of section 899, noting he raised the issue with Mr Bessent during a meeting at the recent G7 summit in Canada. "This would adversely impact on Australian investment if it had been implemented, particularly on investment from superannuation companies," he told reporters in Sydney. "And one of the things that we held earlier this year in Washington DC was a roundtable of Australian investment funds who are willing and keen to invest in the United States - just one way in which the Australia-US economic relationship is an important one." The US news was met with a sigh of relief from the $4.2 trillion Australian superannuation industry, which would have been particularly exposed to the tax, given it holds almost $700 billion worth of US assets. Modelling conducted for the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia by consulting firm Mandala found it could have cut $3.5 billion from returns over the first four years. "This is a really welcome step from the US treasury secretary and the superannuation sector is monitoring developments closely," said ASFA chief policy officer James Koval. "There's still a way to go - the amendments need to be made by lawmakers; there are a number of other amendments under consideration. "This section of the legislation would have changed the risk return profile of investment in the US, which would have been a poor outcome for all involved." Treasurer Jim Chalmers also raised Australia's concerns about the tax during a phone call with Mr Bessent on Wednesday, later telling reporters he was hopeful of a positive outcome. "We do not want to see our investors and our funds unfairly treated or disadvantaged when it comes to developments out of the US Congress," he said. In a speech in June, Future Fund chair Greg Combet said US investments were a less attractive proposition for the sovereign wealth fund, in part because of the proposed tax hike contained in Mr Trump's "big beautiful bill". Australian superannuation funds are breathing a sigh of relief after the US dropped a so-called "revenge tax" on foreign investors. The super industry had been ringing alarm bells over section 899 of President Donald Trump's proposed "big beautiful bill", which would have raised taxes by up to 15 percentage points on foreign entities in retaliation for "unfair taxes" imposed on the US by other countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday revealed the section would be removed from the bill after a deal was reached with the Group of Seven major industrialised nations, allowing it to drop a global minimum tax rate. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he posted on the social media platform X. "OECD Pillar Two taxes will not apply to U.S. companies, and we will work cooperatively to implement this agreement across the OECD-G20 Inclusive Framework in coming weeks and months. "Based on this progress and understanding, I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill." Australia had been an enthusiastic supporter of the OECD Pillar Two agreement, which sought to implement a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent and thereby limit multinationals from minimising taxes paid in Australia by shifting profits offshore. The US withdrawal from the project further complicates federal government efforts to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the removal of section 899, noting he raised the issue with Mr Bessent during a meeting at the recent G7 summit in Canada. "This would adversely impact on Australian investment if it had been implemented, particularly on investment from superannuation companies," he told reporters in Sydney. "And one of the things that we held earlier this year in Washington DC was a roundtable of Australian investment funds who are willing and keen to invest in the United States - just one way in which the Australia-US economic relationship is an important one." The US news was met with a sigh of relief from the $4.2 trillion Australian superannuation industry, which would have been particularly exposed to the tax, given it holds almost $700 billion worth of US assets. Modelling conducted for the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia by consulting firm Mandala found it could have cut $3.5 billion from returns over the first four years. "This is a really welcome step from the US treasury secretary and the superannuation sector is monitoring developments closely," said ASFA chief policy officer James Koval. "There's still a way to go - the amendments need to be made by lawmakers; there are a number of other amendments under consideration. "This section of the legislation would have changed the risk return profile of investment in the US, which would have been a poor outcome for all involved." Treasurer Jim Chalmers also raised Australia's concerns about the tax during a phone call with Mr Bessent on Wednesday, later telling reporters he was hopeful of a positive outcome. "We do not want to see our investors and our funds unfairly treated or disadvantaged when it comes to developments out of the US Congress," he said. In a speech in June, Future Fund chair Greg Combet said US investments were a less attractive proposition for the sovereign wealth fund, in part because of the proposed tax hike contained in Mr Trump's "big beautiful bill". Australian superannuation funds are breathing a sigh of relief after the US dropped a so-called "revenge tax" on foreign investors. The super industry had been ringing alarm bells over section 899 of President Donald Trump's proposed "big beautiful bill", which would have raised taxes by up to 15 percentage points on foreign entities in retaliation for "unfair taxes" imposed on the US by other countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday revealed the section would be removed from the bill after a deal was reached with the Group of Seven major industrialised nations, allowing it to drop a global minimum tax rate. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he posted on the social media platform X. "OECD Pillar Two taxes will not apply to U.S. companies, and we will work cooperatively to implement this agreement across the OECD-G20 Inclusive Framework in coming weeks and months. "Based on this progress and understanding, I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill." Australia had been an enthusiastic supporter of the OECD Pillar Two agreement, which sought to implement a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent and thereby limit multinationals from minimising taxes paid in Australia by shifting profits offshore. The US withdrawal from the project further complicates federal government efforts to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the removal of section 899, noting he raised the issue with Mr Bessent during a meeting at the recent G7 summit in Canada. "This would adversely impact on Australian investment if it had been implemented, particularly on investment from superannuation companies," he told reporters in Sydney. "And one of the things that we held earlier this year in Washington DC was a roundtable of Australian investment funds who are willing and keen to invest in the United States - just one way in which the Australia-US economic relationship is an important one." The US news was met with a sigh of relief from the $4.2 trillion Australian superannuation industry, which would have been particularly exposed to the tax, given it holds almost $700 billion worth of US assets. Modelling conducted for the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia by consulting firm Mandala found it could have cut $3.5 billion from returns over the first four years. "This is a really welcome step from the US treasury secretary and the superannuation sector is monitoring developments closely," said ASFA chief policy officer James Koval. "There's still a way to go - the amendments need to be made by lawmakers; there are a number of other amendments under consideration. "This section of the legislation would have changed the risk return profile of investment in the US, which would have been a poor outcome for all involved." Treasurer Jim Chalmers also raised Australia's concerns about the tax during a phone call with Mr Bessent on Wednesday, later telling reporters he was hopeful of a positive outcome. "We do not want to see our investors and our funds unfairly treated or disadvantaged when it comes to developments out of the US Congress," he said. In a speech in June, Future Fund chair Greg Combet said US investments were a less attractive proposition for the sovereign wealth fund, in part because of the proposed tax hike contained in Mr Trump's "big beautiful bill". Australian superannuation funds are breathing a sigh of relief after the US dropped a so-called "revenge tax" on foreign investors. The super industry had been ringing alarm bells over section 899 of President Donald Trump's proposed "big beautiful bill", which would have raised taxes by up to 15 percentage points on foreign entities in retaliation for "unfair taxes" imposed on the US by other countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday revealed the section would be removed from the bill after a deal was reached with the Group of Seven major industrialised nations, allowing it to drop a global minimum tax rate. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he posted on the social media platform X. "OECD Pillar Two taxes will not apply to U.S. companies, and we will work cooperatively to implement this agreement across the OECD-G20 Inclusive Framework in coming weeks and months. "Based on this progress and understanding, I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill." Australia had been an enthusiastic supporter of the OECD Pillar Two agreement, which sought to implement a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent and thereby limit multinationals from minimising taxes paid in Australia by shifting profits offshore. The US withdrawal from the project further complicates federal government efforts to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the removal of section 899, noting he raised the issue with Mr Bessent during a meeting at the recent G7 summit in Canada. "This would adversely impact on Australian investment if it had been implemented, particularly on investment from superannuation companies," he told reporters in Sydney. "And one of the things that we held earlier this year in Washington DC was a roundtable of Australian investment funds who are willing and keen to invest in the United States - just one way in which the Australia-US economic relationship is an important one." The US news was met with a sigh of relief from the $4.2 trillion Australian superannuation industry, which would have been particularly exposed to the tax, given it holds almost $700 billion worth of US assets. Modelling conducted for the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia by consulting firm Mandala found it could have cut $3.5 billion from returns over the first four years. "This is a really welcome step from the US treasury secretary and the superannuation sector is monitoring developments closely," said ASFA chief policy officer James Koval. "There's still a way to go - the amendments need to be made by lawmakers; there are a number of other amendments under consideration. "This section of the legislation would have changed the risk return profile of investment in the US, which would have been a poor outcome for all involved." Treasurer Jim Chalmers also raised Australia's concerns about the tax during a phone call with Mr Bessent on Wednesday, later telling reporters he was hopeful of a positive outcome. "We do not want to see our investors and our funds unfairly treated or disadvantaged when it comes to developments out of the US Congress," he said. In a speech in June, Future Fund chair Greg Combet said US investments were a less attractive proposition for the sovereign wealth fund, in part because of the proposed tax hike contained in Mr Trump's "big beautiful bill".
