Investors face more uncertainty as a US Federal court blocks Trump's sweeping tariffs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
12 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
US President Donald Trump sends more arms to Ukraine, says he is ‘not happy' with Vladimir Putin
US President Donald Trump says he has approved sending US defensive weapons to Ukraine and is considering additional sanctions on Moscow, underscoring his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the growing death toll in Russia's war with Ukraine. Trump, who pledged as a presidential candidate to end the war within a day, has not been able to follow through on that promise and efforts by his administration to broker peace have come up short. Trump directed his ire at Putin on Tuesday (Wednesday AEST) during a meeting with cabinet officials at the White House. 'I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now,' Trump said, noting that Russian and Ukrainian soldiers were dying in the thousands. 'This is killing a lot of people. 'We get a lot of b******t thrown at us by Putin. ... He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' Trump said he was considering whether to support a bill in the Senate that would impose steep sanctions on Russia over the war. 'I'm looking at it very strongly,' he said. The bill, whose lead sponsors are Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, would also punish other countries that trade with Moscow, imposing 500 per cent tariffs on nations that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports. Trump said on Monday that the United States would send more weapons to Ukraine, primarily defensive ones, to help it defend itself against Russian advances. On Tuesday, he said he had approved such a move. 'We're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I've approved that,' he said. A decision by the Pentagon to halt some shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine prompted warnings by Kyiv last week that the move would weaken its ability to defend against Russia's intensifying air strikes and battlefield advances. Trump, who was seated next to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was asked on Tuesday who had ordered that pause. 'I don't know. Why don't you tell me?' Trump responded.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Elon Musk is facing an uphill battle to see his political party succeed
Billionaire Elon Musk has announced plans to dive back into politics, following his public falling-out with US President Donald Trump. He says he's forming his own political party — which he's called the America Party. Here's what to know about its chance of success. Mr Musk took to X — the social media platform he owns — to ask his followers if he should form his own party. More than 1.2 million X users voted and 65 per cent of them backed his plan for a new party. On Saturday, he announced the formation of the America Party on X: "… you want a new political party and you shall have it! "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." This follows previous foreshadowing that he would work to unseat members of Congress who supported Mr Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The billionaire spent part of Sunday taking feedback from X users about the America Party, which he indicated he'd use to get involved in the 2026 midterm elections. There are two major political parties in the US: the Democrats and the Republicans. Mr Trump is part of the Republican Party, which also currently has the majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. Several minor parties (often called third parties in the US) exist, but they are just a fraction as popular as the two majors and often aren't talked about as a result. In last year's presidential election, for example, the Democrats and Republicans each recorded more than 75 million votes in their favour nationwide. Meanwhile, minor parties and independents drew just 2,878,359 combined. In modern times, the most popular minor parties include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. New political parties are often formed in the US but typically struggle to pull any significant support away from the Republican and Democratic parties. It's a barrier Mr Trump was quick to point out when he heard the news. "[Mr Musk] even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States — The System is not designed for them," the president wrote in a post on Truth Social on Sunday. While a handful of Congress members have been elected as independents, minor parties have recorded little success in recent history. Joe Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket in 2006 after losing the Democratic Party nomination. Dean Barkley briefly served as a senator for Minnesota from 2002 to 2003 as a member of the Independence Party of Minnesota You'd need to trace back to 1970 for the next successful third-party candidate. US elections tend to discourage voters from supporting minor parties. That's because most operate on a first-past-the-post system, rather than preferential. This is where constituents can only choose one candidate to cast a vote for, rather than ordering by first to last choice. While preferential systems ensure the voices of minor party voters are still heard if their first choice doesn't pull enough votes, first-past-the-post votes do not. As a result, voters feel pressured to choose between one of the two candidates most likely to win so they can make sure their vote helps determine the winner. Even though the America Party will likely struggle to win seats, it could still have a big influence on election results because of something known as the spoiler effect. This refers to when a losing candidate effectively splits the votes on one side of the political spectrum, paving the way for less popular candidates to win. The phenomenon has been noted several times in the country's electoral history. Democrats have pointed the finger at Green Party candidate Ralph Nader for their loss in the 2000 presidential election, for example. While their candidate, Al Gore, won the popular vote, he lost the Electoral College — and therefore, the presidency — due to a razor-thin margin of 537 votes in Florida. Mr Nader had drawn a total of 97,488 votes in the state, which Democrats argue would have otherwise gone to Mr Gore and cinched the election. Republicans might have said the same of Robert F Kennedy Jr, had he stayed in the race during the 2024 presidential election campaign. Before he dropped out, polling suggested Mr Kennedy had attracted about 5 per cent of voters. Both Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Mr Trump enjoyed a polling boost when Mr Kennedy withdrew, but the Republican candidate claimed the larger share of projected votes (+1.1 points). Mr Trump ultimately won the popular vote by 1.5 per cent. While at this stage, Mr Musk has indicated he plans to focus on the 2026 midterms rather than a presidential campaign, these examples can be considered a rough blueprint for what effect his party might have in elections. Due to his conservative politics, the America Party could draw votes away from the Republican Party and benefit Democrats. Political analyst and statistician Nate Silver says only modest success for the America Party would be enough to spell trouble for Republicans. "In 2024, four U.S. Senate races and 11 U.S. House seats were decided by two percentage points or less," he wrote on his blog, the Silver Bulletin. "So an America Party that got just 2 per cent of the vote in competitive districts, mostly coming from Republicans, might qualify as an embarrassment for Elon, but could nevertheless hurt the GOP in what is already likely to be a difficult midterm for the party." A survey of 1,000 registered voters conducted by Quantus Insights found 40 per cent would consider backing Mr Musk's party over Republican or Democratic candidates. That sentiment was highest among male Republican respondents, 57 per cent of whom indicated they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for the party. If there's one thing that sets Mr Musk aside from others who have tried to forge their own path, it's his immense wealth. He could have a better chance at impacting next year's midterm elections if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money. Mr Musk is estimated to have tipped at least $250 million into Mr Trump's 2024 election campaign — something he has suggested sealed the win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Mr Musk wrote in June. Cash splashes haven't proven to be a silver bullet for winning elections, though. Following the success of Mr Trump's presidential campaign, Mr Musk attempted to influence the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, backing Waukesha County circuit judge Brad Schimel as the "Republican" candidate in the nonpartisan race. Using similar tactics as he had for Mr Trump, the billionaire offered financial compensation to voters who signed a petition opposing "activist judges". With estimated spending of more than $25 million on advertising, Mr Musk became the largest single contributor in any judicial election in US history. But Dane County circuit judge Susan Crawford — who faced scrutiny for her own billionaire backers — ultimately came out on top with 55.02 per cent of the vote. No. To be eligible to run for the office of president, the US Constitution stipulates a candidate must be a "natural born citizen". That's usually interpreted to mean someone who was born in the US or born abroad to US citizen parents. Either way, they need to have been a US citizen at birth. This clause clearly rules Mr Musk, who was born in South Africa, out. His mother, Maye, is a Canadian model, while his father, Errol, is a South African businessman and politician. Neither were US citizens when he was born. A biography by Walter Isaacson and a profile by Esquire both say Mr Musk obtained his citizenship in 2002. ABC/AP
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Israel's plan for ‘humanitarian city' on ruins of Rafah paves way for Trump's ‘Gaza Riviera'
It is difficult to know with any certainty what such an unprecedented undertaking would look like in practice. One analyst said Katz had, in effect, just ordered the construction of the largest tented area in the world. Loading However, clues can arguably be found in the ongoing initiative to feed civilians via a US backed firm, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), not least because some of its purpose-built distribution sites are in and around Rafah. According to eyewitness reports and some videos that have emerged, civilians are forced to walk for miles through a militarised wasteland where nearly all the buildings have been destroyed by the bombs or bulldozers of the IDF. They are typically corralled between large man-made berms of earth or high metal fences fringed with barbed wire while they wait for ID checks. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in mass-shootings near the sites, with Palestinians accusing Israeli troops. The IDF blames Hamas for deliberately sowing chaos. Katz's comments have prompted alarm not only because of the added suffering it could inflict on ordinary Gazans, but because, some fear, the plan will be used to facilitate the forced displacement of the population. In other words, the highly controversial vision for Gaza as announced by US President Donald Trump early this year. According to the president's so-called Middle East 'Riviera' idea, the population would be moved to redevelop the Strip into a rich man's paradise resembling Las Vegas or Dubai. In more recent months, particularly as he visited Arab leaders in the Gulf, Trump had gone noticeably quiet on this topic. This led commentators to conclude that he had never meant it seriously, but instead used the provocative idea to force the Middle East into coming up with its own plan for post-war Gaza. Loading However, during Netanyahu's visit to the White House this week, the spectre of a 'Trump Gaza' has, arguably, re-emerged. One Israeli official in Washington was reported as saying that Trump was still keen on the idea, although the president dodged the question at a press conference. Netanyahu himself praised the president's 'brilliant vision' and said Israel was close to agreements with third countries to receive Gazan civilians. The prime minister was clear, as he has been since February, to frame the idea as a one of voluntary relocation. 'If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave,' he told reporters, fresh from having handed Trump a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. 'It shouldn't be a prison,' Netanyahu continued. 'It should be an open place, and give people a free choice.' Human rights organisations say life is now so grim for Gazans civilians that, if even a half-safe third country was prepared to take them, they would have to agree to go. In other words, in practical terms, there would be nothing voluntary about it. Loading That is the main reason why Katz's plan for a so-called humanitarian city has caused such a stir. Often the most bellicose in Netanyahu's Right-wing cabinet when it comes to the subject of Palestinians, he has consistently been the biggest cheerleader for the idea of relocation, other than the ultranationalist coalition partners. He has previously ordered officials to prepare a mechanism to allow Gazans to resettle elsewhere. It is no coincidence that the subject of population transfer has re-emerged as formal talks continue with Hamas on a ceasefire and hostage release deal. It does Israel no harm to posit an extreme scenario for what might happen to the enclave if Hamas does not play ball. Although Katz spoke of forcing civilians to the south in the context of a 60-day ceasefire deal, Hamas will have several potent reasons to reject the proposal. The terror group thrives when surrounded by ordinary civilians – it is their preferred means of fighting. The Katz proposal would also cut them off entirely from incoming aid, emptying their already drained coffers and allowing the IDF to effectively starve them out over months. The humanitarian city would be run by international organisations, Katz said, but did not specify which ones. Finally, their self-styled status as the Palestinian people's legitimate arm of resistance risks being trashed if they consented to rendering the entire population refugees within their own land, let alone – potentially – outside it. However, some analysts believe that Hamas, ground down by the relentless IDF assault, is gasping for a ceasefire and may show some flexibility on these points. An official close to the talks in Qatar said that while agreement had not yet been reached, the 'gaps are small'. If the multiple recent leaks from Israel's security cabinet in the last couple of weeks are to be relied on, the army's leadership is extremely sceptical of any plan that involves their long-term presence in Gaza as a governing power. The Israeli chief of staff, Major-General Eyal Zamir, is said to have told ministers that his troops have gone as far as they can go without putting the remaining hostages – 20 are thought to be alive – at grave risk. It would take three brigades at least to secure Katz's proposed 'humanitarian city'. To whatever extent Hamas has been causing unrest at the aid distribution sites, Israeli troops have a tendency to react aggressively when Palestinians come close. Having to police the entire population in a relatively small area raises the risk of further mass shootings and international outrage. Loading Despite the potential for a deal in the coming days, or further down the line, it is clear that for the ultranationalists in Netanyahu's government, and indeed others on the Right, population transfer in Gaza is not just a bargaining chip, but a goal. Senior Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are enthusiastically behind it – and can bring down Netanyahu's coalition if they choose. On Monday, it was reported that a $US2 billion ($3.1 billion) plan to create 'humanitarian transit areas' inside – and possibly outside Gaza – were already presented to the White House, possibly months ago.
