Wall Street opens mixed as US-China trade talks begin
Top officials from both countries have kicked off discussions at London's Lancaster House, looking to address disagreements around a preliminary trade agreement struck last month that had briefly cooled tensions between the world's largest economies.
The meeting, which could run into Tuesday, comes four days after US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration.
The leaders had, however, left key issues unresolved.
"The talks will have to go on for some time before we decide whether or not there's actual progress being made. However, most investors remain hopeful that there will be some positive results," said Peter Andersen, founder at Andersen Capital Management.
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told CNBC in an interview on Monday the US trade negotiators are seeking a handshake in London to seal an agreement struck by Trump and Xi to allow the export of China's rare earth minerals and magnets to the United States.
Hopes of more trade deals between the US and its major trading partners, along with upbeat earnings and tame inflation data, helped US equities rally in May, with the S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq notching their best monthly gains since November 2023.
The S&P 500 remains a little more than 2.0 per cent below all-time highs touched in February while the Nasdaq is about 3.0 per cent below its record peaks reached in December.
Major data releases this week include readings on May consumer prices and initial jobless claims.
While investors widely expect the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates unchanged next week, focus will be on any signs of pick-up in inflation as Trump's tariffs risk raising price pressures.
In early trading on Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 129.75 points, or 0.30 per cent, to 42,633.12, the S&P 500 lost 0.32 points, or 0.01 per cent, to 6,000.04 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 44.81 points, or 0.23 per cent, to 19,574.76.
Seven of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors fell, with healthcare stocks, down 0.6 per cent, declining the most.
On the flip side, information technology stocks advanced 0.6 per cent.
Most megacap and growth stocks were mixed.
Tesla shares edged 0.5 per cent lower after brokerage Baird downgraded the stock to "neutral".
Nvidia gained 1.3 per cent.
Warner Bros Discovery shares jumped 9.5 per cent, the most on the S&P 500, after the company said it would separate its studios and streaming business from its fading cable television networks.
Robinhood Markets fell 7.4 per cent after S&P Dow Jones Indices left S&P 500 constituents unchanged in its latest rebalancing, following recent speculation that the online brokerage would be added to the benchmark index.
Merck rose 1.1 per cent after the drug maker's oral cholesterol pill succeeded in two late-stage studies.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 1.65-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.44-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq.
The S&P 500 posted 10 new 52-week highs and one new low while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 63 new highs and 27 new lows.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
11 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
Shirley always wanted to run a clothing factory. She says this Australian fashion giant killed her dream
Following the collapse of Australian fashion retailer Mosaic Brands, and its much-loved labels such as Katies and Noni B, Dateline meets the suppliers who say they lost nearly everything. Watch Part Two of the two-part investigation, The Cost of Doing Business, on Tuesday 19 August at 9.30pm on SBS or live on SBS On Demand . Watch Part One now on SBS On Demand . The Cost Of Doing Business: Part 1 Shirley Lu had always adored fashion and dreamed of one day running her own factory in Shenzen, China. When she had the chance to work with Australian retail giant Mosaic Brands, she was thrilled. Mosaic owned 10 labels including Rivers, Katies, Noni B and Millers after a period of expansion between 2014 and 2018. By 2019, the company had 1,400 stores, employed 7,000 people and worked with hundreds of suppliers in Australia and overseas. "I thought Mosaic was a very famous company in Australia," she told Dateline. However in September 2023, her first invoice went unpaid. "I saw my shoes for sale on Rivers' official website but when my payment was due, no one got back to me … From September through October, I contacted them every single day by phone and email. But no one answered me." By March 2024, she says she received US$40,000 (around $62,000) after being put on a payment plan by Mosaic, but it wasn't enough to cover her expenses. "They took my goods but refused to pay. I was so miserable and broken, because I had to pay for the workers' wages." Fashion supplier Shirley Lu was initially excited to work with an Australian company the size of Mosaic Brands. Source: SBS Shirley borrowed money from her sister to cover some of her costs, but her sister was later diagnosed with breast cancer and needed the money back. "I told them, I need this money for my loved ones to survive … but they didn't reply." "We all felt that our world had come crashing down." Mosaic Brands in financial trouble The company had been reporting mostly modest profits to the ASX and in 2022, CEO Scott Evans took home a salary package of over $2 million. Noni B stores across Australia have closed down after the label's owner Mosaic Brands went into administration in October 2024. Insolvent trading is when a company is unable to pay existing debts while taking on new ones. It is illegal in Australia because of the harm it can inflict on unsuspecting businesses. However, Mosaic was using a legal protection called 'safe harbour', which enables a company to keep trading while its directors take steps to rescue the business. In recent years, the retail climate in Australia has been hit by a perfect storm of COVID-19, cost of living pressures and the rise of online shopping. This year alone, 800 Australian retailers have gone bust. According to the report to creditors, Mosaic used safe harbour protection on and off for a period of four and half years. While in safe harbour, a publicly-listed company doesn't have to disclose their insolvency to shareholders or suppliers. 'A kind of blackmail' Harry Wang also says he didn't know that Mosaic Brands was in financial trouble. He first began making shoes for Rivers from his factory in Xiamen, China, back in 2012. He says when Mosaic acquired the Australian brand in 2018, things changed. But he says it wasn't until 2022 that he stopped getting paid on time for the goods he supplied. Harry Wang says Mosaic Brands now owes him US$6.2 million (around $9.5 million). Source: SBS Harry says he felt pressured to continue to supply goods or he would face loss of sales claims or non-payment for the goods he had already supplied. "We have no choice. We'd be pushed to deliver the goods. Otherwise, we really don't have any payment … So we have to keep on supplying them," he told Dateline. "That's a trick for all the suppliers … a kind of blackmail." Harry says he was also issued with US$4.5 million (around $6.9 million) worth of loss of sales claims due to reported delivery delays or faulty goods from 2022 to 2024. Harry settled these claims at the time with Mosaic, but alleges they were excessive. He says Mosaic Brands now owes him US$6.2 million (around $9.5 million): US$4.2 million (around $6.5 million) in unpaid invoices accrued between 2022 and 2024, and US$2 million (around $3 million) in stock that he's already made, including 80,000 pairs of shoes stocked in his warehouse that may never be delivered. Harry's office staff has been reduced from 15 to four, while one of the factories he works with is in 'a state of shutdown'. Harry says the stress has placed a huge strain on his marriage and family life. "This is a very, very big lesson for all the Chinese suppliers … Don't trust anybody. That's the lesson we got," he says. "All of our wealth, after all our hard work, was suddenly wiped out by them. "I'm so sad." This is a very, very big lesson for all the Chinese suppliers … Don't trust anybody. Harry Wang Mosaic 'deeply disappointed and upset' When Mosaic entered administration in October 2024, its 10 labels and then-650 stores closed for good. Among the company's losses, Mosaic owed an estimated $US50 million (around $77 million) to suppliers in China, according to the Mosaic Brand creditor list from 8 November. Suppliers in China, Bangladesh and Australia are coming together to demand answers and call for a public inquiry into the actions of Mosaic Brands. Former Mosaic Brands CEO Scott Evans declined Dateline's request for an interview and did not provide any detailed answers to questions we put to him. Through his lawyers, he said: "Given the current circumstances of the company it is difficult ... to provide substantive comments." "Based on some of the questions and propositions that have been put to me, there seems to be material misinformation about the company, which I believe will be clarified in the fullness of time." Scott Evans when he was CEO of Noni B in 2014. Source: AAP / Dean Lewins He added that during his 10 years as CEO he "had the privilege of working alongside literally thousands of hardworking team members ...and suppliers". And that he was "deeply disappointed and upset to see Mosaic Brands enter administration". No adverse findings have been laid against any Mosaic Brands directors. 'More likely to get bitten by a shark' As the Mosaic Brands administration process unfolds, Professor Jason Harris, an insolvency expert at The University of Sydney Law School, warns that suppliers are unlikely to get any money back. Nor is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) likely to take action, he adds. "You're more likely to get bitten by a shark on George St in Sydney than you are to be prosecuted for insolvent training," he told Dateline. "The problem we have in Australia is there are so few cases where ASIC is taking action, or where liquidators have the funding to take action, that the bad guys out there know they're likely to get away with it. "More than 90 per cent of companies that go into liquidation give nothing to unsecured creditors. "There's all the laws we need to address this poor behaviour. What we don't have is effective enforcement of those laws." Harris adds that Mosaic Brands' use of safe harbour could be the first real test case for this law. While there is no time limit or expiry on the use of safe harbour, it relies on company directors and their advisers knowing when a business can't be saved. Harris says while it's hard to comment on Mosaic's specific situation without being across all the information, four years "stretches credulity". "If you're still having the same problems four and a half years later, then clearly it's not working... "Where were the gatekeepers?" A release issued on behalf of the Mosaic Brands board of directors last year, in response to previous reports the company had been using safe harbour protections, said its directors take their duties seriously, and did seek advice on the applicability and compliance with the safe harbour provisions. ASIC did not respond to Dateline's specific questions, but says it continues to monitor the administration of Mosaic Brands. Ongoing struggles Meanwhile, Dateline has spoken to 50 suppliers across Australia, China, Bangladesh and India who all say the way Mosaic Brands conducted business was unethical. In Shenzen, Shirley is still struggling to rebuild her life. To pay back her sister and cover her costs, she mortgaged her home. But she says Mosaic still owes her US$60,000 (around $92,000). Her dreams of growing her business and one day owning her own factory are now shattered. "I had delivered the products on time, on quality, to Mosaic," she says. "But I never imagined that they would cheat with my goods and not pay me." * Some of the debts referenced by suppliers in this story are disputed, with creditors' debts to be finalised as part of the administration process.
ABC News
41 minutes ago
- ABC News
US senator Chris Coons says Australia spending more on defence than given credit for
A senior Democrat senator who led a US congressional delegation to Australia says the Albanese government deserves more credit for its level of defence spending, but should still go further. Senator Chris Coons, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Australia was spending more than it was given credit for once shipyards and other defence infrastructure were taken into account. The delegation of Republican and Democrat members of Congress met Australia's prime minister in Sydney on Friday afternoon after attending the Australian America Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide. "I do think an increased investment in defence would be justified", Senator Coons told the ABC after meeting Anthony Albanese. "Of course, that's a decision for the Australian government, the Australian people", he added. Defence spending currently sits at just over 2 per cent of GDP in Australia and is forecast to reach 2.3 per cent by 2033-'34. Senator Coons said if other defence infrastructure was to be included the figure would be higher. "The way that our NATO allies are counting their percentage of GDP, I'm told, would give Australia credit for north of 2.7 or 2.8 per cent," he said. NATO members have recently committed to lift their defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Senator Coons said this figure "might be significantly easier for Australia to reach, given that your accounting doesn't quite give you full credit". He has vowed to spend as required to meet Australia's defence needs. The congressional delegation also strongly backed the AUKUS deal amid an ongoing review of the agreement by the Pentagon. US Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby, who is conducting the review, has also called on US allies in the Asia Pacific region to lift defence spending. Senator Coons said Congress would resist any move by the Pentagon to cancel or significantly change the AUKUS agreement. "I think if there were to be some unexpected change in direction there'd be very strong pushback from Republicans and Democrats who I've spoken within the Senate leadership," he said. The prime minister is hoping to meet President Donald Trump during a visit to the United States next month for the UN General Assembly.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it.
