Nationals Senate leader blasts Foreign Minister as she returns from Washington without a trade deal
The Foreign Minister was in Washington DC for the Quad Foreign Ministers meeting and was able to talk with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio - but was unable to secure a carve out from the 10 per cent tariffs or a meeting with President Donald Trump.
Speaking to Sky News, Nationals senate leader Bridget McKenzie was scathing about the Foreign Minister's trip to the US.
'She was unable to secure an exemption on our tariffs despite the United Kingdom being able to get an exemption,' she said on Sky News NewsDay.
'She was unable secure a meeting with President Trump for our Prime Minister. 240 days since this guy's been in the White House and we're unable to land a critical and important meeting with our most important ally.'
She also went onto accuse the Prime Minister of being closer with Chinese president Xi Jinping, after it was confirmed that Anthony Albanese will meet with him while travelling to the Quad summit.
'Albo's about to get on the plane and head over to see President Xi. So, you know, I think it is very concerning."
Mr Albanese has yet to secure a meeting with the US President despite Mr Trump returning to the White House nearly a year ago.
The pair were due to have a sit-down meeting at the G7, but Mr Trump cancelled and returned to Washington DC due to the crisis in the Middle East.
Ms Wong spoke to AM Agenda Host Laura Jayes in Washington DC and downplayed any concerns around the AUKUS agreement, or on securing tariff relief.
'We're obviously very flexible about those arrangements. The President is a very, very busy man,' Ms Wong said, before adding that Secretary Rubio was hopeful a meeting between Mr Albanese and President Trump takes place.
When asked about the tariffs, Minister Wong was pressed on what action had been done by the government to change Trump's mind.
'The US has a trade surplus with us,' she said.
'There's a lot of benefit to the United States from the free tariff arrangements that exist under our Free Trade Agreement.'
The scrambling for a meeting with President Trump comes amid concerns Mr Albanese is being snubbed because of US Ambassador Kevin Rudd.
The former Prime Minister made statements critical of Mr Trump prior to becoming Mr Albanese's pick to be US ambassador.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Does Sir Joh remind you of someone else?
Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
China denies military base ambitions in Pacific Islands
China's embassy in Fiji denies that Beijing wants a military base or sphere of influence in the Pacific Islands after Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said islands were trying to cope with a powerful China seeking to spread its influence. "The claims about China setting up a military base in the Pacific are false narratives," an embassy spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. "China's presence in the Pacific is focused on building roads and bridges to improve people's livelihoods, not on stationing troops or setting up military bases." Rabuka said on Wednesday his country had development co-operation with China, but was opposed to Beijing establishing a military base in the region. In any case, China did not need a base to project power in the region, he said. China tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in September that flew over Fiji to land 11,000km from China in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean. "If they can very well target an empty space they can very well target occupied space," Rabuka told the National Press Club in Canberra. Washington became concerned about China's ambition to gain a military foothold in the Pacific Islands in 2018 when Beijing sought to redevelop a naval base in Papua New Guinea and a military base in Fiji. China was outbid by Australia for both projects. The concern resurfaced in 2022 when China signed a security pact with Solomon Islands, prompting Washington to warn it would respond if Beijing established a permanent military presence. In November, the outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the Trump administration to keep its focus on the region because China wanted to build bases in the Pacific Islands. The Chinese embassy spokesperson said Fiji and China respect each other's sovereignty. "China has no interest in geopolitical competition, or seeking the so-called 'sphere of influence'," the statement said. China has established a police presence in Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu. China's embassy in Fiji denies that Beijing wants a military base or sphere of influence in the Pacific Islands after Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said islands were trying to cope with a powerful China seeking to spread its influence. "The claims about China setting up a military base in the Pacific are false narratives," an embassy spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. "China's presence in the Pacific is focused on building roads and bridges to improve people's livelihoods, not on stationing troops or setting up military bases." Rabuka said on Wednesday his country had development co-operation with China, but was opposed to Beijing establishing a military base in the region. In any case, China did not need a base to project power in the region, he said. China tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in September that flew over Fiji to land 11,000km from China in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean. "If they can very well target an empty space they can very well target occupied space," Rabuka told the National Press Club in Canberra. Washington became concerned about China's ambition to gain a military foothold in the Pacific Islands in 2018 when Beijing sought to redevelop a naval base in Papua New Guinea and a military base in Fiji. China was outbid by Australia for both projects. The concern resurfaced in 2022 when China signed a security pact with Solomon Islands, prompting Washington to warn it would respond if Beijing established a permanent military presence. In November, the outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the Trump administration to keep its focus on the region because China wanted to build bases in the Pacific Islands. The Chinese embassy spokesperson said Fiji and China respect each other's sovereignty. "China has no interest in geopolitical competition, or seeking the so-called 'sphere of influence'," the statement said. China has established a police presence in Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu. China's embassy in Fiji denies that Beijing wants a military base or sphere of influence in the Pacific Islands after Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said islands were trying to cope with a powerful China seeking to spread its influence. "The claims about China setting up a military base in the Pacific are false narratives," an embassy spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. "China's presence in the Pacific is focused on building roads and bridges to improve people's livelihoods, not on stationing troops or setting up military bases." Rabuka said on Wednesday his country had development co-operation with China, but was opposed to Beijing establishing a military base in the region. In any case, China did not need a base to project power in the region, he said. China tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in September that flew over Fiji to land 11,000km from China in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean. "If they can very well target an empty space they can very well target occupied space," Rabuka told the National Press Club in Canberra. Washington became concerned about China's ambition to gain a military foothold in the Pacific Islands in 2018 when Beijing sought to redevelop a naval base in Papua New Guinea and a military base in Fiji. China was outbid by Australia for both projects. The concern resurfaced in 2022 when China signed a security pact with Solomon Islands, prompting Washington to warn it would respond if Beijing established a permanent military presence. In November, the outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the Trump administration to keep its focus on the region because China wanted to build bases in the Pacific Islands. The Chinese embassy spokesperson said Fiji and China respect each other's sovereignty. "China has no interest in geopolitical competition, or seeking the so-called 'sphere of influence'," the statement said. China has established a police presence in Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu. China's embassy in Fiji denies that Beijing wants a military base or sphere of influence in the Pacific Islands after Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said islands were trying to cope with a powerful China seeking to spread its influence. "The claims about China setting up a military base in the Pacific are false narratives," an embassy spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. "China's presence in the Pacific is focused on building roads and bridges to improve people's livelihoods, not on stationing troops or setting up military bases." Rabuka said on Wednesday his country had development co-operation with China, but was opposed to Beijing establishing a military base in the region. In any case, China did not need a base to project power in the region, he said. China tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in September that flew over Fiji to land 11,000km from China in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean. "If they can very well target an empty space they can very well target occupied space," Rabuka told the National Press Club in Canberra. Washington became concerned about China's ambition to gain a military foothold in the Pacific Islands in 2018 when Beijing sought to redevelop a naval base in Papua New Guinea and a military base in Fiji. China was outbid by Australia for both projects. The concern resurfaced in 2022 when China signed a security pact with Solomon Islands, prompting Washington to warn it would respond if Beijing established a permanent military presence. In November, the outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the Trump administration to keep its focus on the region because China wanted to build bases in the Pacific Islands. The Chinese embassy spokesperson said Fiji and China respect each other's sovereignty. "China has no interest in geopolitical competition, or seeking the so-called 'sphere of influence'," the statement said. China has established a police presence in Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Trump's tax-cut bill heads to a final vote in US House
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default.
