Last year, Trump promised Bitcoin bros a seat at the table. He wasn't lying
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here BREAKING Man charged with murder after fatal Sydney house fire Last July, Donald Trump made a campaign stop that served as his crypto coming out party. Trump, a guy who has an aide follow him around with a portable printer so he can read the internet, got onstage at the Bitcoin Conference in Nashville and promised the moon to a crowd of extremely online crypto-Libertarians. "Oh, you're going to be very happy with me," he said, before vowing to make America the "crypto capital of the planet". President Donald Trump has embraced crypto in his second term. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) With the zeal of the converted, he rattled off crypto shibboleths, promising to "fire" Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler (the Biden-era bogeyman the industry loved to blame for its problems), to create a "strategic national Bitcoin stockpile" and even pardon Ross Ulbricht — the creator of the Silk Road digital marketplace used primarily for selling drugs on the dark web, who was serving a life sentence. Since retaking office, Trump has kept all of those promises (technically — Gensler stepped down before Trump could fire him). And he's gone even further. "Maybe the most important thing that we did for this community, we reject regulators and we fired Gary Gensler, and we're gonna fire everybody like him," Vice President JD Vance said at a crypto conference overnight. It's hard to overstate how much the president has changed his tune on crypto, which he criticised in his first term as "highly volatile and based on thin air". Now, Trump's personal wealth is estimated to include $US2.9 billion ($4.5 billion) tied to his digital asset projects — representing some 37 per cent of his total fortune, according to an April report from the left-leaning State Democracy Defenders Fund. Bitcoin, a bellwether for crypto, has shot up 67 per cent since Trump spoke in Nashville last year. This week, Trump deepened his financial ties to the alternative financial industry that his administration is tasked with regulating. His two oldest sons and Vance took his spot headlining this year's Bitcoin Conference in Las Vegas, where they reassured supporters that Team Trump is, in Don Jr's words, "seriously long crypto". On Tuesday, Trump's media company said it would raise $US2.5 billion ($3.9 billion) to buy Bitcoin — a move that mimics a corporate cash-management strategy popularised by MicroStrategy (now known as Strategy) and Tesla. Two things to know about what's going on here. First: Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns the president's social media platform, Truth Social, is not a company in a traditional sense of, like, a business that makes money. It is a perpetually unprofitable entity that generates almost no revenue, but public interest in Trump keeps the company's stock market value elevated — much like a meme stock . By becoming more of a Bitcoin holding company, TMTG offers traditional investors exposure to bitcoin's gains (and losses) without the hassle of actually buying bitcoin and managing it in a digital wallet themselves. "Holding Bitcoin on a balance sheet is part financial strategy, part cultural signalling," Temujin Louie, CEO of blockchain platform Wanchain "TMTG's move is more politically charged. Given its ties to President Trump, any decision must inevitably align with the current administration's rhetoric and embrace of cryptocurrencies as a populist tool." Second: the Bitcoin play adds another halo of legitimacy around an asset that investors are still afraid of. The appearance of credibility has long eluded crypto because, well, it's just so useful for doing crimes , and its advocates haven't done a great job articulating mainstream use cases for digital money that you can't actually buy much with. But having an evangelist in the West Wing seems to be changing that. Bitcoin hit an all-time high of over $US111,000 ($173,000) last week, fuelled in part by the advancement of legislations that would create the first federal rules around stablecoins , a subcategory of crypto, a key step the industry has been lobbying for. "I'm here today to say loud and clear with President Trump, crypto finally has a champion and an ally in the White House," Vance said at the Bitcoin Conference. He also implored crypto fans to carry last year's voting momentum forward for the 2026 midterms, and boasted that he personally still holds "a fair amount of Bitcoin today". Lawyers and ethics experts aren't mincing words when they say Trump's crypto ventures open the door to all kinds of potential corruption. "The only reason this isn't a crime is because the criminal conflict-of-interest statute does not apply to the president or the vice president," Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, told CNN. "The president and his family are investing in crypto — riding a bubble that may someday burst. "The systemic impact on the economy could trigger another financial crisis." The White House has repeatedly said the president has no conflicts of interest, and lashed out at the media for even asking. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently said it was "frankly ridiculous that anyone in this room would even suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit". cryptocurrency
Bitcoin
World
finance
Donald Trump CONTACT US
Property News: 'Stressful': Perth mum's dilemma after rental mix-up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Trump rages at ‘hustler' judges with his tariff agenda at mercy of the courts
Washington: President Donald Trump's sweeping worldwide tariffs will remain in place while the government pursues an appeal that will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme Court, with the administration saying it expects America's trading partners to keep negotiating deals in the meantime. The Court of International Trade on Thursday struck down a large swath of Trump's tariffs, finding the president overstepped his legal authority by using emergency powers. Less than 24 hours later, a federal judge in Washington made the same finding in a separate case. However, on Thursday (Friday AEST) a federal appeals court agreed to temporarily preserve the tariffs – which include a 10 per cent levy on Australian goods – while the appeal is urgently held. The White House said it expected the matter to be settled by the US Supreme Court, which could receive an appeal as soon as Friday. The government will argue that Trump has the authority to enact the tariffs under his foreign affairs and national security powers. 'The courts should have no role here,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. 'There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. 'America cannot function if President Trump – or any other president for that matter – has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage.' Trump later issued his first public remarks on the initial Court of International Trade ruling – which found the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries – calling it 'wrong' and 'political'.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump's tariffs given reprieve
Samantha Donovan: Hello, welcome to PM. I'm Samantha Donovan coming to you from the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation in Melbourne. Tonight, Donald Trump's tariffs remain in place after another court ruling. But the uncertainty about his trade agenda continues. Also, health experts warning a new strain of COVID is spreading across the country. And Inala Springs calls for an independent investigation into the death of a disabled Indigenous man in police custody. Thalia Anthony: There are concerns in the community about police investigating police. And I think the only way to change this record is to do something different. Samantha Donovan: Donald Trump's tariff regime has been given a reprieve after a US federal court ruled the import taxes will remain in place while it considers an appeal by the White House. A US trade court had blocked the tariffs by deciding the President had exceeded his authority in imposing them. Mr Trump has continued to rail against that decision, declaring it was a threat to the country and would quote, completely destroy presidential power. Luke Radford reports. Luke Radford: A lot can happen in a day, including yet another twist in the battle over Donald Trump's tariffs. A Manhattan court struck them down yesterday, arguing the power to levy tariffs in this case belongs to Congress, not the President. But after the Trump administration launched an appeal, the federal court has temporarily reinstated them. Something White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was quick to celebrate. Karoline Leavitt: The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. Luke Radford: It's important to note that the administration hasn't actually won its appeal. The courts just decided the tariffs can stay while that's being figured out. And despite what the White House says, experts say the court does have a role here. Nick Ackerman is a former assistant US attorney and was a member of the Watergate prosecution team. Nick Ackerman: I think ultimately, if you read the opinion, it's pretty well written, it's well reasoned. I think it's going to be affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court and most likely to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. I mean, I've been saying for a long time that this act just doesn't give him the power to impose the kinds of tariffs that he was imposing and doing it the way he did. Luke Radford: In the meantime, the US is continuing its negotiations with other countries. US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told Fox News while discussions with China have stalled, yesterday's decision has had no notable impact. Scott Bessent: They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends. So we've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning. Luke Radford: It's a small victory in what has been a tough week for the president. On Wednesday local time, he reacted angrily after he was asked about a new acronym coined on Wall Street. TACO. Short for Trump Always Chickens Out. Donald Trump: And in many ways, I think we really helped China tremendously because, you know, they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with China. We were doing no business because of the tariff, because it was so high. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. Luke Radford: While this case is going to appeal, it's unlikely to be the end of the legal challenges. Another case lodged by 13 US states is still underway. Dan Rayfield is attorney general of Oregon. Dan Rayfield: When you have a president who thinks that you're above the law and above following the laws and is trying to corral power in this way, that is one of the most undemocratic things you can do. The Constitution of the United States gives the power to set tariffs solely to our Congress. Congress then delegates some of that power to the president. So it's not even his role. If we are going to have a healthy democracy long term, you have to have a president that is willing to follow your constitution. He takes an oath. You got to follow it. You got to take it seriously. Luke Radford: The White House says it has other ways of levying tariffs, even if this case goes against them. Samantha Donovan: Luke Radford reporting. Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor. Well back to Australia now and in the Northern Territory, police have ruled out an independent investigation of the death of an Indigenous man in their custody this week. 24-year-old Kumunjai White was disabled and in state care. He died after being arrested in an Alice Springs supermarket for suspected theft. His family held a vigil there today and they're adamant his death must be investigated by someone other than the NT police. Myles Houlbrook-Walk reports. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: In the same aisles of the supermarket where Kumunjai White died, his family today have held a vigil mourning the loss of the 24-year-old Waltbury man. Ned Hargraves: No more. No more! We are saying enough is enough! Hear our words. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: His grandfather, Ned Hargrave, spoke of sorrow for his family and the remote Aboriginal community of Yundamoo in Central Australia where Kumunjai White was from before moving to supported accommodation for his disabilities in Alice Springs. Earlier this week, several senior Waltbury leaders had called for an independent investigation. Ned Hargraves: We want justice for my jaja, my grandson. I'm sure there is another way, another better way of dealing with things, dealing with people. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: Robin Japanagka Granites called for those in the supermarket when Kumunjai White died to come forward to assist the investigation. Robin Japanagka Granites: When we get everyone together, we need everyone to tell us what had happened. The truth will tell us and get us all back to normal. And in a normal way, we will talk to each other and tell us what can we do about it. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: There's been limited detail so far about the nature of the arrest. Northern Territory Police have said the young Waltbury man was placing items down the front of his clothes at the Cole's supermarket in Alice Springs when he was confronted by security guards. Two police officers in plain clothes were in the supermarket at the time and restrained the man. One person who says they were an eyewitness and asked to remain anonymous told the ABC they heard a lot of shouting and a lot of commotion. Opinion: What it was, I can't be sure, but yeah, it looked pretty violent. And then, yeah, they slammed into the ground. There's just like lots of shouting. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: As for calls for an independent investigation, they were today rejected by Police Commissioner Martin Dole, who in a statement confirmed he'd spoken to both officers. He extended sincere condolences to the family, friends and community of the man who died. He contacted both officers directly involved in the incident on Tuesday evening and understood the high level of public interest in the matter. However, said he would respectfully reject calls for the investigation to be handed to an external body. The statement went on to say. Martin Dole: This incident is being investigated by the major crime division which operates under strict protocols and with full transparency. The investigation will also be independently reviewed by the NT coroner who has broad powers to examine all aspects of the incident and make findings without interference. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: Thalia Anthony is a professor of law at the University of Technology, Sydney. Thalia Anthony: There are concerns in the community about police investigating police. We know for Aboriginal people that has not given them a sense of justice or accountability. And I think the only way to change this record is to do something different. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: She says the nature of the man's arrest, given his disability, needs to be closely examined. Thalia Anthony: Given that he was already under state care, I think it's going to be asked by the coroner, why did he get to this situation where he was in a supermarket allegedly hiding food? And then that triggered not only the security officer to get involved, but also the police to get involved. Myles Houlbrook-Walk: Thalia Anthony pointed to the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody and its findings regarding the importance of independent oversight of police. Thalia Anthony: The 1991 Royal Commission to Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was concerned with reinvestigating 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody because of the flawed nature of police investigating police. And so one of their most strident recommendations was that within 48 hours, an officer attached to the coroner should investigate the root cause of a death in custody. And the imminence of this investigation was essential. Samantha Donovan: Law Professor Thalia Anthony from the University of Technology, Sydney. Myles Houlbrook-Walk, the reporter. This is PM. I'm Samantha Donovan. You can hear all our programs live or later on the ABC Listen app. Ahead, Australians urge to get booster jabs as a new COVID variant sweeps the country. Dr Lara Herrero: It is now really being seen all over the world at various degrees. And there is a bit of a prediction that this might start taking over other strains. So this is why the WHO is saying, oh, we just need to keep an eye on this one. Samantha Donovan: Up to eight people have been detained by Border Protection Authorities after reaching a remote part of the Northern Territory coast by boat. They were found walking near the town of Maningrida, east of Darwin. The ABC understands they're Chinese nationals. Their arrival has set off another stoush between the government and opposition over border security. Andrew Green is the ABC's Defence Correspondent. Andrew, what can you tell us about these people who've arrived in Australia? Andrew Greene: These details have started emerging in perhaps the past 24 hours or so, but what we have established is that earlier this week on Tuesday, authorities in a remote part of the Northern Territory in Arnhem Land, around 500 kilometres east of Darwin, were alerted to the presence of a group of men believed to be from China who had made their way onto the Australian mainland in a very remote part of the northern coast of Australia. But they were detected and then apprehended by authorities. And then a day later, another two men, also believed to have come to Australia from China originally, were spotted by some local rangers and they too, we understand, are now in the custody of the Australian Border Force, but their precise location is not known. Samantha Donovan: Have the authorities had much to say about their arrival, Andrew? Andrew Greene: Following their usual course of action, they've said very little. In fact, in a statement, the Australian Border Force tells the ABC that it does not either confirm or deny operations or comment on them. But what we have established is that authorities are yet to locate a boat that may have taken these people to Australia. Now that points to a few things. It suggests that perhaps they were dropped off close to the mainland by perhaps even an Indonesian fishing vessel or by another party that's brought them to Australia. Apart from that though, very little known. We know that it's up to eight individuals who are, we believe most of them are from China, but that is of course not confirmed by the authorities. Samantha Donovan: And what's been the reaction from politicians? Andrew Greene: Well, the newly appointed Shadow Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Hastie, has said that this is another example of the underinvestment by the Albanese government in border protection. The fact that a boat carrying unauthorised arrivals had made it to the Australian mainland. And in response to that, the Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, took aim at his new opposition counterpart. And he said that two days into the job, Andrew Hastie had already helped the cause of people smugglers by making those comments. So while not officially commenting on whether the arrivals had happened at all, Tony Burke did take a swing at his opponent. Samantha Donovan: Andrew Greene is the ABC's Defence Correspondent. A new strain of COVID-19 is surging in Australia and accounting for a large portion of cases across the country. Called NB 1.8.1, the variant is now the dominant strain in China and Hong Kong. Medical experts say it's a timely reminder for people here to get their booster vaccines. Kimberly Price has more. Kimberley Price: While many Australians will have thought COVID-19 was a thing of the past, a new variant of the virus has been detected across Australia and abroad. Dr Lara Herrero is a virologist at Griffith University. Dr Lara Herrero: So our new variant is NB 1.8.1, that's a mouthful and aren't all these variants named ridiculously I have to say. Kimberley Price: The World Health Organisation has declared the strain a variant under monitoring after it was first detected in January. Dr Herrero says NB 1.8.1 is now the dominant variant in China and Hong Kong. Dr Lara Herrero: It is now really being seen all over the world at various degrees and there is a bit of a prediction that this might start taking over other strains but this is early days for that so we'll just have to wait and see how that goes. But the new variant has come from a long range of lines and it's a descendant of JN1 which is what our current vaccines are actually made of. Kimberley Price: And it's made an impact here in Australia. Currently, the new variant makes up more than 40% of total COVID cases tested in Victoria. It's about 25% in Western Australia and New South Wales, about 20% in Queensland and less than 10% in South Australia. More than five years on from the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Herrero says there are still regular infections. Dr Lara Herrero: We've got particular mutations that are in the spike protein that seems to be making it easier for this virus to attach to our cells and it seems to be making this virus evade our antibodies a little bit better. So this is why the WHO are saying we just need to keep an eye on this one. Kimberley Price: The mutation of COVID-19 is not a new phenomenon. Professor Paul Griffin is the Director of Infectious Diseases at Mater Health Services in Brisbane. Prof Paul Griffin: This is what COVID has done many times and will keep doing. It's changed again and this new sub-variant has some properties that are a little bit concerning. We've seen cases go up potentially as a result. So it's really a timely reminder that we can't just forget about COVID. It's not over and we need to keep doing the good things we did for a little while to protect each other so we get this under control again. Kimberley Price: Early reports show NB1.8.1 has a high infection rate, but existing vaccines are effective against it and it can be detected through home and lab test kits. Prof Paul Griffin: This new sub-variant, whilst different in terms of protection from immunity, still is able to be detected by our current testing. So you can get a rapid antigen test at home that will find COVID as well as flu and RSV. Keep in mind though that at home tests aren't quite as good as a lab-based test. So if you have symptoms and your RAT is negative, still consider getting a laboratory-based test. Kimberley Price: However, in the past six months, less than 7% of adults have received a COVID vaccine according to federal data. Prof Paul Griffin: There was a new COVID booster that came out late last year and that looks to still provide excellent protection against this new sub-variant. So it's still going to keep working really well. The single biggest thing that determines what sort of symptoms you get or how sick you are is whether you're vaccinated or not. Kimberley Price: Health Minister Mark Butler is encouraging everyone to roll up their sleeves and get a booster shot. Mark Butler: I do encourage, particularly as we head into winter, for people to think about the last time they got a COVID vaccine. If it's more than six months since you had your last booster, if you're 65 to 74, if it's more than 12 months, and for everyone else, have a serious think. I've just got my booster over the last couple of weeks and I think that puts me in a good position. Kimberley Price: For Melbourne woman Maddy Ruskin, a new variant of COVID-19 is worrying. Maddy Ruskin: COVID can affect people regardless if they have pre-existing issues or not. So it makes me worried about the future of people's health because I wouldn't want anyone to end up like what I've been through. Kimberley Price: Maddy Ruskin has been chronically ill since she was 15 years old, but contracting COVID-19 in 2022 changed everything for her. Maddy Ruskin: I was experiencing symptoms that I'd never had before, developed allergies that I'd never had before, and my quality of life has really plummeted. It's been a really hard adjustment. I was used to being sick, but this is pretty severe. Kimberley Price: Now living with long COVID, Maddy Ruskin hopes more people think about their health by wearing a mask and getting booster vaccines. Maddy Ruskin: Don't risk your life. Don't risk the life that you enjoy living because just one infection, I only had one infection and just one infection can completely change your life. Kimberley Price: COVID-19 vaccines are free for all people in Australia, including those without a Medicare card. Samantha Donovan: Kimberly Price. And that's PM for this week. Thanks to producers David Sparkes and Gavin Coote. Technical production by Joram Toth, Nick Dracoulis and David Sergent. I'm Samantha Donovan. I hope you have a happy and safe weekend. Good night.
