logo
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive

Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive

Yahoo2 days ago
Congress AUKUS
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities.
Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall.
'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability," Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat.
The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership.
'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem," Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies."
US cannot build enough ships
As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia.
A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said.
The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said.
'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be" to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.
Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States.
"Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.'
The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities.
At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities" for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia.
Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.'
AUKUS called 'crucial to American deterrence'
Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.'
'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace," Jones said.
Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia," Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia."
Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership.
They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told the AP that support for AUKUS is strong and bipartisan, 'certainly on the Armed Services Committee.'
"There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research
Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research

Showing that his loyalty to his own anti-vax mentality is greater than his loyalty to President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the dangerous quack atop the Department of Health and Human Services, has announced that he will be rescinding a half billion dollars in grants and contracts for the development of mRNA technology and vaccines. It was mRNA that was key to both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID vaccines that were created under Trump in his first term, but RFK does not like life-saving vaccines and so he's pulling the plug. Part of the problem with policymaking at the level of the federal government is that the impacts are often too large, too long-winded, too abstract to really be able to nearly encompass their full breadth, particularly for busy people who have their own immediate concerns to worry about. In this case, though, we can point to very clear, very grim and almost unavoidable repercussions directly caused by this decision: many people worldwide — including in the United States — will die deaths that could have been prevented. Setting aside all of the jargon, at its most basic level a vaccine is about allowing the body to ward off or survive pathogens that would otherwise be extremely dangerous and debilitating or kill a person outright. The model itself is far from new; inoculations in some form of another, including the basic utilization of a dead virus to create antibodies that can attack a live one, date back centuries. What's mainly changed since then is that we have only advanced our understanding and technology to keep infectious diseases from running rampant in our society. One such technological leap was the mRNA process, an innovation so significant that its pioneers won the Nobel prize. The effectiveness and the safety of this process has been well-documented in research settings, but we don't even have to parse the studies to know this because we all collectively lived it. As Trump's Operation Warp Speed produced, the first and most widespread COVID inoculations were mRNA-based vaccines, which enabled us to blunt the rampaging pandemic and much more quickly return our society to a semblance of normalcy. Those COVID vaccines have already been synthesized, but the real issue here are the ones that haven't, or even the inoculations for viruses that we have not even identified or think to be a threat today. Whether we like it or not, our relationship to infectious diseases is something akin to an arms race, in which we are constantly trying to counteract pathogens that, by dint of evolution, are constantly finding ways to elude our defenses and sicken us. We've stayed largely on top of this arms race over the last six decades or so in particular because of constant efforts that have developed sophisticated tools to fight back, including mRNA. A disarmament here for no other reason than ideologically-driven conspiracy that drives Bobby Kennedy is going to mean that we give the diseases an opening, which they will no doubt exploit to sicken and kill us. There are quite simply no two ways about it, and any pause in the research could have dire consequences, even if it is reversed later. Ongoing and sometimes multimonth or even multiyear projects will lose funding and might have to be shut down, with all their efforts wasted. There's no way to really put the genie back in the bottle so we have to stop it in the first place, which means RFK must be fired immediately or impeached and removed by Congress. Many lives hang in the balance. _____

Now Jimmy Fallon Is Using Taylor Swift To Suggest Trump Had Sinister Ties To Epstein
Now Jimmy Fallon Is Using Taylor Swift To Suggest Trump Had Sinister Ties To Epstein

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Now Jimmy Fallon Is Using Taylor Swift To Suggest Trump Had Sinister Ties To Epstein

Jimmy Fallon is on a roll in taunting President Donald Trump with sexual jokes ― and some are making insinuations about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. (Watch the video below.) On Wednesday the 'Tonight Show' host was back at it again, using Taylor Swift songs to sum up the president's Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fallon got a big response for noting that Americans are worried that Trump isn't ready for the talks to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine 'since his mind is basically a giant 'Blank Space.' ' Then the comedian waded into very sensitive territory. 'Also, he's distracted by the Epstein scandal. He'll tell Putin it's been a 'Cruel Summer' because everyone thinks 'I Did Something Bad' but I swear everyone on the island was '22.′' 'Oooooh,' the audience reacted in he-really-went-there fashion. Fast-forward to 1:50 for the Swift-Trump bit: To be clear, Trump reportedly has never been investigated over anything involving the late Epstein. The sex offender's hobnobbing with celebrities and politicians has generated high interest in what government files potentially contain about them. And while Trump was reportedly told by Attorney General Pam Bondi that he is mentioned in the files, the context is not publicly known. Trump brought some suspicion on himself by suddenly declaring the files to be a hoax. But some Republicans are backing a bipartisan House push for the release of all the files related to Epstein. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appears to be hindering the process. Fallon has taunted Trump for a while on his about-face on the Epstein front. On Monday the host noted that the president had hoped for a 'trilateral meeting' of peace talks involving Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy. 'Last time Trump had a trilateral meeting was on Epstein Island,' Fallon cracked. On Tuesday, he again parlayed monologue chatter about the summit into another naughty dig at the commander in chief. 'Trump said that in his meeting with Putin, he will know probably in the first two minutes whether a deal is possible,' the host said. 'It's reassuring when a president talks about ending a war like a Tinder date.' 'Yep,' Fallon continued, 'Trump says that he'll know in two minutes, which makes sense because, according to Stormy Daniels, two minutes is plenty.' Related... A Funny Thing Happened To Ratings When Jimmy Fallon Had Fox News Host As Guest Jimmy Fallon Again Talks Dirty About Trump And We're Here For It Jimmy Fallon's Filthy Trump Burn Over Putin Meeting Gets A 'Whoa' From Audience

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store