‘Noticeably fickle': Trump's new submarine chief a critic of Australia
Jerry Hendrix, a retired navy captain who holds a senior role in the president's Office of Management and Budget, said last year that 'the Australians have been noticeably fickle' about AUKUS and queried if the deal had true bipartisan support.
Meanwhile, with AUKUS under review by the Pentagon, the heads of a US congressional committee on China have written to the Trump administration to defend the agreement, arguing it would 'dramatically enhance' collective efforts to defend against Beijing's aggression.
The letter to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is the second time in as many months that members of the US Congress from both sides of politics have written to the former Fox News host to defend AUKUS, underlining fears a US review of the pact will recommend major changes.
This masthead has reported the review is focusing on four main concerns, one of which is the capacity of the American shipbuilding industry to build enough nuclear-powered submarines to meet US demands and fulfil AUKUS obligations – a long-standing concern.
In April, Trump signed an executive order to 'restore America's maritime dominance', which established a shipbuilding unit on the National Security Council under Ian Bennitt. But the NSC has been downsized and Bennitt has left for the private sector, with the shipbuilding program moved to the Office of Management and Budget.
Hendrix, whose title at the office is deputy to the associate director (defence), has been critical of Australia. In May 2024, he told US conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt that he was not convinced there was lasting bipartisan support for the AUKUS agreement in Canberra.
'I am not sure, given the political parties in Australia, whether the next administration that comes in, the next prime minister, will provide similar support to AUKUS as the present government does,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
16 minutes ago
- The Age
America's shame is that Trump can remain shameless
A few days earlier a separate Journal story reported on a sexually suggestive letter it said Trump had sent the financier for the occasion of Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter refers to secrets and has a sketch of a naked woman on it. Trump denies he wrote it and is suing the Journal for defamation. Loading On Wednesday, The New York Times published a piece titled 'I Covered the Epstein Case for Decades. These are 9 Questions We Actually Need Answered.' Among the unanswered questions journalist Barry Levine lists are queries about how Epstein made so much money (his estate was worth $600 million), whether he might have been an intelligence asset (which was claimed as an unverified excuse for the leniency of a 2008 plea deal that ended a federal investigation into Epstein), questions over the nature of Epstein's relationship with former US president Bill Clinton (who also appears in the Epstein private jet flight logs), and queries over why the autopsy on Epstein was never made public (many people doubt the report's finding that he died by suicide while in prison). The MAGA heartland has long held as an article of faith that Trump would release the Epstein files when he was in a position to do so. Trump has responded with a frenzy of social media posting, apparently to distract from pressing Epstein-related matters, and has reacted angrily when asked questions about Epstein by reporters. In an apparent concession, Deputy Attorney-General Todd Blanche interviewed Epstein's convicted accomplice and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. But Blanche was previously Trump's private attorney for his hush-money trial and two federal criminal cases. Suspicions inevitably arise that he might be predisposed to protect the interests of the president. Loading It is a scenario worthy of a political thriller – The Da Vinci Code set in the post-#MeToo era. Trump's history of sexual misconduct is well known, spans decades and has been successfully tested in court. Comedian Stephen Colbert calls it the president's 'long public history of pervitude'. Paramount cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last week, with many commentators concluding it was at least partly due to the host's mockery of Trump. Undeterred, Colbert – who will continue to present the show until May – played a tape of Trump talking to US radio shock jock Howard Stern in 2006. After boasting he could easily bed a 24-year-old, the then-60-year-old Trump was asked if he had an 'age limit' when it came to women. 'No, I don't have an age limit,' Trump told Stern, before correcting himself – slightly. 'You know, I don't want to be, like … with 12-year-olds.' It is a truism that Trump has redefined the terms of shamelessness in public life with his sexual exploits, brags about sexual assault, and the judicial findings against him of sexual assault. None of it has made any difference to his popularity among his base. If anything, the moral outrage over Trump's doings only galvanises his fervent supporters in his defence. Loading Whatever is in the Epstein files regarding Trump may indeed be shameful for the president by any objective measure, but that measure no longer exists in American public life. Few observers of American politics believe Trump could be damaged substantially by further revelations of sexual misconduct. Those in his base who are pressuring Trump to release the files are not suspicious about the president's potential sexual wrongdoing. They are piqued by a betrayal of faith – they believed Trump was the guy who would work to unmask the deep-state Democrat paedophiles on their behalf. On Friday, The Australian Financial Review published a long interview with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky has become a latter-day feminist heroine, whose public shaming following her affair with then-president Bill Clinton was epic and unprecedented. Her notoriety was such that, for a decade or so after the event, Lewinsky struggled to get a date or a job interview. The affair was consensual but the exploitative power dynamics at play – she was a 22-year-old intern, he was the world's most powerful man – are undeniable in the contemporary context. Clinton lied about the affair and it almost ended his presidency. But I do not think you could say any substantial moral shame adheres to him, all these decades later, from the affair. Meanwhile, Lewinsky has spent the rest of her life – she is now 52 – trying to expunge her shame and to make amends for it in the court of public opinion. It seems likely that the public has not been told the whole story about the people and institutions that enabled Epstein to offend against vulnerable girls, at such scale, over decades. But you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that whatever comes out, the shame of it all will defy gravity and bounce off some, while sticking to others.
Sydney Morning Herald
16 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
America's shame is that Trump can remain shameless
A few days earlier a separate Journal story reported on a sexually suggestive letter it said Trump had sent the financier for the occasion of Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter refers to secrets and has a sketch of a naked woman on it. Trump denies he wrote it and is suing the Journal for defamation. Loading On Wednesday, The New York Times published a piece titled 'I Covered the Epstein Case for Decades. These are 9 Questions We Actually Need Answered.' Among the unanswered questions journalist Barry Levine lists are queries about how Epstein made so much money (his estate was worth $600 million), whether he might have been an intelligence asset (which was claimed as an unverified excuse for the leniency of a 2008 plea deal that ended a federal investigation into Epstein), questions over the nature of Epstein's relationship with former US president Bill Clinton (who also appears in the Epstein private jet flight logs), and queries over why the autopsy on Epstein was never made public (many people doubt the report's finding that he died by suicide while in prison). The MAGA heartland has long held as an article of faith that Trump would release the Epstein files when he was in a position to do so. Trump has responded with a frenzy of social media posting, apparently to distract from pressing Epstein-related matters, and has reacted angrily when asked questions about Epstein by reporters. In an apparent concession, Deputy Attorney-General Todd Blanche interviewed Epstein's convicted accomplice and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. But Blanche was previously Trump's private attorney for his hush-money trial and two federal criminal cases. Suspicions inevitably arise that he might be predisposed to protect the interests of the president. Loading It is a scenario worthy of a political thriller – The Da Vinci Code set in the post-#MeToo era. Trump's history of sexual misconduct is well known, spans decades and has been successfully tested in court. Comedian Stephen Colbert calls it the president's 'long public history of pervitude'. Paramount cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last week, with many commentators concluding it was at least partly due to the host's mockery of Trump. Undeterred, Colbert – who will continue to present the show until May – played a tape of Trump talking to US radio shock jock Howard Stern in 2006. After boasting he could easily bed a 24-year-old, the then-60-year-old Trump was asked if he had an 'age limit' when it came to women. 'No, I don't have an age limit,' Trump told Stern, before correcting himself – slightly. 'You know, I don't want to be, like … with 12-year-olds.' It is a truism that Trump has redefined the terms of shamelessness in public life with his sexual exploits, brags about sexual assault, and the judicial findings against him of sexual assault. None of it has made any difference to his popularity among his base. If anything, the moral outrage over Trump's doings only galvanises his fervent supporters in his defence. Loading Whatever is in the Epstein files regarding Trump may indeed be shameful for the president by any objective measure, but that measure no longer exists in American public life. Few observers of American politics believe Trump could be damaged substantially by further revelations of sexual misconduct. Those in his base who are pressuring Trump to release the files are not suspicious about the president's potential sexual wrongdoing. They are piqued by a betrayal of faith – they believed Trump was the guy who would work to unmask the deep-state Democrat paedophiles on their behalf. On Friday, The Australian Financial Review published a long interview with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky has become a latter-day feminist heroine, whose public shaming following her affair with then-president Bill Clinton was epic and unprecedented. Her notoriety was such that, for a decade or so after the event, Lewinsky struggled to get a date or a job interview. The affair was consensual but the exploitative power dynamics at play – she was a 22-year-old intern, he was the world's most powerful man – are undeniable in the contemporary context. Clinton lied about the affair and it almost ended his presidency. But I do not think you could say any substantial moral shame adheres to him, all these decades later, from the affair. Meanwhile, Lewinsky has spent the rest of her life – she is now 52 – trying to expunge her shame and to make amends for it in the court of public opinion. It seems likely that the public has not been told the whole story about the people and institutions that enabled Epstein to offend against vulnerable girls, at such scale, over decades. But you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that whatever comes out, the shame of it all will defy gravity and bounce off some, while sticking to others.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Jerome Powell fact-checking Trump has gone viral. What's the backstory of their feud?
It's been likened to a scene in comedy series The Office — US President Donald Trump being fact-checked by a disgruntled man in a suit and a hard hat. But there's more to awkward exchange than a new meme format. Here's the backstory of the video and why the pair's disagreement speaks to a serious issue in the US. That's Jerome Powell, the chair of the US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve — which is often called "the Fed" for short — is the American equivalent to the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). It's America's central bank, an institution tasked with regulating the finance sector, keeping the US economy in check and tackling inflation. And part of that role is setting the target range for what's called the federal funds rate — a figure that influences the interest rates US banks charge customers. The key thing about the Fed is that it's a separate entity from the US government, so it's not subject to the whims of whatever party is in power. Mr Trump and Mr Powell are touring the Federal Reserve Board building, which is currently undergoing renovations, in Washington DC. This tour came after Mr Trump's administration criticised the renovation project as "ostentatious". The long-running renovation project was originally costed at $US1.9 billion ($2.9 billion), but the Fed says that went to $US2.5 billion. During the tour, Mr Trump said the project's cost "went up a little or a lot" and was costing "about $US3.1 billion". But Mr Powell shook his head, saying he had not heard those figures from the Fed. Mr Trump then handed Mr Powell a piece of paper. "Are you including the Martin renovation?" Mr Powell said. "You just added in a third building, is what that is. That's a third building." "It's a building that's being built," Mr Trump said. "No, it was built five years ago," Mr Powell said. The awkward moment happened before a pack of reporters, so footage of the exchange quickly spread. Reposts of the video clocked up hundreds of thousands of views on X. Meanwhile, a frame of Mr Powell examining the figures became a meme format: And the virality of the moment was not helped by this interaction between the two: Mr Trump wants Mr Powell to lower the federal funds rate so that interest rates will go down in the US. In an Australian context, that would be equivalent to the prime minister asking the governor of the RBA to lower interest rates. Since April, Mr Powell has warned that Trump's policies, particularly on tariffs, could undermine the economy. He said the tariff levels were "significantly larger than anticipated" and that they could result in both lower growth and higher inflation. This would make it difficult for the Fed to react and prohibit a rate cut. In response, Mr Trump launched a tirade and called the chair a "major loser". During the heated exchange this week, Mr Trump pressed him again on lowering interest rates, telling him to "do the right thing" and slash them by 3 percentage points or more. Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would "fire" Mr Powell. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the central bank, says that members of the Board of Governors, including the Fed chief, can be "removed for cause by the president". But the law does not define "cause" or lay out any standard or procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed board member, and the law has never been tested in court. Several federal laws shielding members of other agencies from being removed by the president without cause say that "cause" can include neglect of duty, malfeasance, and inefficiency. If Mr Powell is fired and sues, those laws could be a guide for courts to determine if Mr Trump had cause to remove him. Last week, Mr Trump said Mr Powell had kept rates too high and would be out in eight months. "I think he's done a bad job, but he's going to be out pretty soon," he said. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday said the entire Federal Reserve needed to be examined as an institution and whether it had been successful. Mr Bessent, speaking with US media, declined to comment on a report that he had advised President Donald Trump not to fire Fed chair Jerome Powell. He said it would be the president's decision. But he said the institution should be reviewed, citing what he called the Fed's "fear-mongering over tariffs". He said that there had been little, if any, inflationary effect so far. Following his visit, the president walked back his comments and said that he would like the chair to resign but it would disrupt the markets if he were to remove him.
