Paramount settles with Trump over 60 Minutes interview
Paramount said it would pay $US16 million ($A24 million) to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly".
"The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement on Wednesday said.
Trump filed a $US10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favour of the Democratic Party" in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $US20 billion.
CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas.
CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment.
Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future US presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.
The case entered mediation in April.
Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the consumer protection laws that make it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce.
Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the media, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false.
The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $US8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the US Federal Communications Commission.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting licence if elected.
He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavourable coverage as "fake news".
The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump.
As part of that settlement, which was made public in December, the network donated $US15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologised for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape.
It also follows a settlement by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which in January said it would pay about $US25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol.
Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media.
CBS parent company Paramount has settled a lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.
Paramount said it would pay $US16 million ($A24 million) to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly".
"The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement on Wednesday said.
Trump filed a $US10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favour of the Democratic Party" in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $US20 billion.
CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas.
CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment.
Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future US presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.
The case entered mediation in April.
Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the consumer protection laws that make it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce.
Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the media, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false.
The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $US8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the US Federal Communications Commission.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting licence if elected.
He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavourable coverage as "fake news".
The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump.
As part of that settlement, which was made public in December, the network donated $US15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologised for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape.
It also follows a settlement by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which in January said it would pay about $US25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol.
Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media.
CBS parent company Paramount has settled a lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.
Paramount said it would pay $US16 million ($A24 million) to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly".
"The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement on Wednesday said.
Trump filed a $US10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favour of the Democratic Party" in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $US20 billion.
CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas.
CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment.
Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future US presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.
The case entered mediation in April.
Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the consumer protection laws that make it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce.
Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the media, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false.
The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $US8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the US Federal Communications Commission.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting licence if elected.
He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavourable coverage as "fake news".
The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump.
As part of that settlement, which was made public in December, the network donated $US15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologised for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape.
It also follows a settlement by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which in January said it would pay about $US25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol.
Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media.
CBS parent company Paramount has settled a lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.
Paramount said it would pay $US16 million ($A24 million) to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly".
"The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement on Wednesday said.
Trump filed a $US10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favour of the Democratic Party" in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $US20 billion.
CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas.
CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment.
Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future US presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.
The case entered mediation in April.
Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the consumer protection laws that make it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce.
Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the media, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false.
The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $US8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the US Federal Communications Commission.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting licence if elected.
He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavourable coverage as "fake news".
The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump.
As part of that settlement, which was made public in December, the network donated $US15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologised for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape.
It also follows a settlement by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which in January said it would pay about $US25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol.
Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Public safety and national security come before a scoop
There are two things that should particularly exercise an editor's mind when deciding on the publication of certain sensitive reports. Public safety and national security. Many arguments can be made for providing readers with as much information as possible — that's the business we're in — but some lines are crossed and risk peril when they involve those two areas. It's a long time since the Australian media had to think about the consequences of operating as a restrained free press when the country is at war and might need to defend itself. And long may that continue. But even our Defence Minister just two weeks ago conceded Australia would be dragged in to support the US if it became involved in any Chinese attack on Taiwan. That's a likelihood some defence experts think could be only several years away. With the world holding its breath that an all-in conflagration won't break out in the Middle East after America's intervention to end the war between Israel and Iran, questions remain about whether President Donald Trump is the peacemaker he claims to be, or an opportunistic belligerent. That has caused divisions in Trump's support base because he promised a nation weary of fighting other people's wars that he would not take them into more foreign campaigns. The so-called 12-day war has also raised other questions about America's politically-riven society. It again exposed elements in the American intelligence community — what the MAGA movement calls the Deep State — and embedded in the Left media who would rather the USA be seen to fail than Trump be seen to have a win. That's not just Trump derangement syndrome. That's deeply unpatriotic. And potentially even worse if it led to harm. The editors at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times who decided to take on Trump over the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities based on leaked 'Top Secret' intelligence reports they had not seen, but had only been told about, went out on a limb. Reporters require very strong faith in a source — and usually need wider confirmation — to rely on what they are told about vital documents without seeing them. At the time details of this top-secret intelligence was published, America remained on the brink of being dragged into a precipitous war. There were potentially extreme consequences. The possibility of further American involvement resulting from those assessments of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities was a live issue. That is why the intelligence was done. Not for triumphalism, but to investigate the effectiveness of the bombing and the possibility that more might be needed. In other words, whether more Americans would have to risk their lives to finish the job. Iran had a strong interest in how much the Americans knew — or what they thought they knew. But the desire to score points against Trump was greater than the editors' caution to ensure what they might publish did not damage American interests. They decided it was acceptable to use it to contest Trump's assertion of 'obliteration' without worrying that they were effectively supporting Iran's attempts to make it appear that its nuclear program had not suffered a significant setback. One effect of supporting Iran in that cause was to weaken the pressure on it to stop fighting. And to suppress dissent against Iran's theocracy. Another perverse effect of the publication was to encourage people who hate Trump to cheer for America to fail. And Iran — the globe's biggest sponsor of international terrorism — to win? During the recent conflict, I spent a lot of time watching Qatar-based Al-Jazeera because they had a team of reporters in Tehran providing in-depth reports missing on other cable networks. The Al-Jazeera coverage was superior. I continued switching across to Al-Jazeera in the lead-up to Trump's appearance at the NATO meeting in The Hague which also provided an interesting perspective not available from usual news sources. For instance, there was fascinating live coverage of a joint press conference between the Qatari and Lebanese prime ministers a day after Iran had fired 19 missiles at the US air base just outside Doha. The swirling middle eastern politics at play between Qatar's friendship with Iran and its alliance with the US and Lebanon's involvement in hostilities with Israel reflected that old story about the scorpion and the frog. And then I chanced on live coverage of a presser between Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte — the former longstanding Dutch PM — with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence secretary Pete Hegseth sitting on the sidelines. Rutte began with some extraordinary gushing over Trump for his achievement of forcing NATO members to meet to lift their defence spending to five per cent of GDP. He said Trump had now achieved even more than in his first term when he put the blowtorch on the Europeans which, Rutte claimed, resulted in an extra US$1 trillion being spent on their defence needs. That was news. Reporters then asked Trump about the reports of the leaked intelligence. He didn't hold back: 'CNN is scum,' he said. 'MSNBC is scum. The New York Times is scum. 'They're bad people, they're sick. They've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less. They should not have done that. The pilots hit their targets and the pilots should be credited. They're not after the pilots, they're after me.' Trump then referred a question to Rubio who made a series of important points that need serious reflection by the media. Firstly, he confirmed the intelligence was marked Top Secret without saying that media sources need to justify releasing such information during hostilities. Avoiding giving any detail, which he is sworn to protect, Rubio argued intelligence of that kind always contained a range of scenarios especially when the collected information was not conclusive. Rubio said the leakers had cherry-picked only the most sceptical parts of the assessment, and the subsequent news reports 'mischaracterised' the conclusions. 'I hate commenting on these stories, because often the first story is wrong and the person putting it out there has an agenda,' Rubio said. 'That story is a false story, and it's one that really shouldn't be re-reported because it doesn't accurately reflect what's happening.' Good point. The farther the media reporting got from the original news reports, the more the 'intelligence' was taken as having been passed on truthfully. Those regurgitating the CNN-MSNBC reporting did not know the leakers — so could not question their credibility — were unaware of their motives or which parts had been leaked and which concealed. But the 're-reporting' contained no caveats on credibility, even though everyone knows the febrile animosity of CNN and MSNBC for Trump and his administration. Hegseth described the assessment as 'a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence.' That is completely lost in the re-reporting. CNN's original report makes it clear the network had not seen the intelligence assessment, claiming it had been 'described by seven people briefed on it.' The report suggests a patchwork of snippets. But even their sources clearly didn't see the actual document. Briefed? They may have just heard about it. The Times quoted 'officials familiar with the findings.' 'The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available,' CNN said, clearly acknowledging, but not being constrained by, its preliminary and inconclusive nature. 'But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.' And that was the only point they wanted to make. What the leakers wanted to achieve. Pure political point-scoring. 'This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN before publication, 'and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.' Maybe they did. Maybe not. The truth is still out there. But what is more certain is that the pertinent question about the effectiveness of one of America's most critical armaments — deployed for the first time — should be determined in a less dangerous environment. And not as part of a blatant political vendetta. It wasn't always like this. When the mainstream news media was not so partisan, more considered, less willing to trade national security for clicks. Evaluating the possible impact of a controversial news report is part of an editor's job. But it escalates from brand protection and reputational damage control to something much more important when the report involves national security, particularly during a conflict with the potential to expand.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
'Cruel' Trump move to shake Aussies' trust in US
Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect."
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Back home': Donald Trump's Elon Musk threat shocks the world
ANALYSIS July 4 is traditionally a time of fireworks for the United States. But Elon Musk got the party started early. Not only has his latest attempt to launch his enormous Starship rocket failed in flames, he's initiated another online flame-war with his former employer – US President Donald Trump. This time, it's explosive. 'Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,' Trump quipped as their war of words flared again this week. Former Special Government Employee turned born-again CEO Elon Musk is angry. Not at the Trump administration's anti-immigrant agenda. But with the way it handles money. Musk, the founding figure behind Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called the budget 'utterly insane and destructive' and 'political suicide.' He's spent much of the past fortnight lobbying Republicans to vote against it. 'This bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 TRILLION, the biggest increase in history, putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery!' the world's richest man posted on his personal social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). Trump was busy trying to railroad Republican senators and house representatives into casting his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda in concrete before the national July 4 celebrations (FRIDAY NIGHT). But he found time to fire back. The 47th President used his own personal social media service, Truth Social, to threaten the cancellation of government contracts with Musk's companies. 'You know, he can lose a lot more than that, I'll tell you right now,' Trump added. 'Elon can lose a lot more than that.' The Commander-in-Chief insists his Federal Government spending bill is 'big, beautiful'. His former 'First Buddy' calls it a 'disgusting abomination'. Trump's promise to slash government spending was the centrepiece of his 2024 election pitch. Musk was his greatest cheerleader, pitching $440 million towards Republican campaign costs. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has done the math on the President's Big Beautiful Bill and found it will add more than $A5 trillion to the $A55 trillion US national debt. And that has Musk feeling he hasn't gotten his money's worth. Party games Musk's return to full-time CEO has done nothing to change the fortunes of his troubled electric car manufacturing brand, Tesla. Vehicle deliveries over the past three months are down a record 13 per cent on the previous year. The three-month Trump-Musk bromance evaporated in an emotional outburst on June 5. Musk was unhappy with the impact of Trump's sweeping tariffs on imports. And the draft of the administration's first budget wasn't what he expected. So Musk lashed out. The world's richest man accused the world's most powerful man of suppressing his presence in the Epstein Files – a list of collaborative sex offenders, including Britain's Prince Andrew. Then, the South African-Canadian-US multinational appeared to quietly back down. After all, a lot of money rides on the survival of his SpaceX rocket launch contracts. Now Musk says he doesn't want Trump's money anyway. He says his hi-tech cars should never have been given government subsidies in the first place. And nor should any others. 'I am literally saying CUT IT ALL,' Musk retorted in a tweet. 'Now.' And he's maintaining his rage against big government spending. 'Hitting the debt ceiling is the only thing that will actually force the government to cut waste and fraud,' Musk added. (Previously, he had insisted DOGE could do that job.) 'That's why the debt ceiling legislation exists!' Earlier this year, Musk promised to donate an additional $440 million towards Republican midterm election campaigning. Now, like Trump, Musk is threatening to run personally chosen candidates against Republican politicians who defy his will. 'They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,' Musk threatened at the weekend. 'Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.' A few hours later, he posted: 'If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.' It's a strategy that hasn't worked so far for disgruntled Australian billionaire Clive Palmer. But Palmer doesn't have anywhere near the cash to splash as Elon does. Or a privately owned social media platform. From welfare to warfare Trump on Monday accused Musk of collecting 'more subsidy than any human being in history, by far'. And the former reality TV host and property developer has his fingers on Capitol Hill's purse strings. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE,' Trump added. 'Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!' To add insult to injury, the creation of DOGE was a personal ambition of Musk's. He spent the first four months of Trump's second term wielding personally appointed 'auditors' as a metaphorical chainsaw against uncooperative government staff. But his promise to find $US2 trillion in savings in the first year swiftly evaporated to just $200 million. This failure to deliver upset Trump. Now, after Musk quit his White House role last month, DOGE is in Trump's hands. 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon,' the President told reporters before boarding Marine One on the White House lawn Wednesday. 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?' It's not the first time the convicted fraudster has made the threat. He vowed to 'terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts' early in June. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' he added on Truth Social. Now, Trump has reminded Musk that he also has his fingers on the reins of ICE – the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. But Trump's failure to cut the ballooning US budget deficit has also unsettled some old-school Republicans. They, too, have attracted the President's ire. 'For all cost-cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get re-elected,' he threatened Tuesday. Republican Senator Thom Tillis responded by announcing he would not seek re-election. He warned in his retirement notice that it was 'increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.' Abandoning the prospect of re-election will give him 18 months of 'pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit', he said. Trump has reportedly responded by nominating his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as a contender to fill Tillis' vacated senate seat. A return to empathy? Elon Musk has had a change of heart. Or, at least, he says so. He's called criticism of his chainsaw act at the Republican congress earlier this year a 'valid point'. 'Milei gave me the chainsaw backstage and I ran with it, but, in retrospect, it lacked empathy,' he posted on X on Monday. He was referring to Argentina's right-wing populist President Javier Milei. His gift of a glittering chainsaw sparked Musk's incomprehensible onstage diatribe and display. But it's a confession that appears to clash with the billionaire's self-proclaimed personal philosophy. Recently, Musk blamed the world's ills on the human compulsion to share and understand the feelings of another. 'Like, there's so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself,' Musk insisted during an interview with Joe Rogan in February. 'The fundamental weakness of Western civilisation is empathy. The empathy exploit … 'So, I think, you know, empathy is good, but you need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot.' His critics pointed out that empathy is what sociopaths lack. It's also what they exploit. Others are now pointing to the utter failure of alternate parties to make a dent in US elections. Musk's chances of becoming the 48th President are nil. That's not just because he isn't a home-born US citizen. Nor his appallingly low popularity among US voters. The Libertarian Party is the third-largest political movement in America. Its best performance was in 2016, when it secured 3.26 per cent of the presidential vote. It's a consequence of the 'first past the post' voting system. It's 'winner takes all'. Margins and preferences aren't reflected in overall outcomes. But political scientist Bernard Tamas has told US media that minor parties can be a powerful irritation. 'They emerge very quickly, they run a bunch of candidates all over the country, and then they cause one or both major parties major pain,' Tamas says. 'They basically are pulling away votes.' Deflecting even two or three per cent away from a frontrunner can cause a seat to flip – but only between the Republican or Democrat frontrunners. Few such third parties survive. 'The most successful third parties in America last about a decade,' Tamas adds. 'Once they become too much of a threat, the major parties start stealing their rhetoric, their ideology'. And even if that ideology wins, the 47th President has proven it won't necessarily be put into effect.
