New management revives SRT performance division that developed Hellcat V8 engine
Antonio Filosa, who took charge of the French-Italian-American automotive conglomerate in late June, has been slowly announcing his executive and senior management team.
He has promoted Tim Kuniskis, currently head of Ram, to oversee all of its North American brands, which also include Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler.
Mr Kuniskis will also head up the revived Street and Racing Technology (SRT) division that was shuttered in 2021 not long after Fiat Chrysler merged with the PSA Group — parent of Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Opel and Vauxhall — to form Stellantis.
SRT will once again be put in charge of engineering performance models for all four North American marques. It will also take over Stellantis North America's racing operations, which include drag racing and, starting next year, the NASCAR Truck Series.
In its past life SRT made vehicles like the Dodge Neon SRT-4, as well as the V10-powered Dodge Viper. Its most recent efforts were concentrated around the 6.2-litre supercharged Hellcat V8 engine, which was installed in the Dodge Charger sedan and Challenger coupe, Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, and Ram 1500 TRX.
The division also worked its magic on less fire-breathing V8 models, including those used in the Chrysler 300.
Although the SRT division was disbanded in 2021, the company continued to develop the Hellcat engine up until the demise of the third-generation Dodge Challenger and seventh-generation Dodge Charger. The Hellcat soldiers on to this day under the bonnet of the Dodge Durango Hellcat.
No plans for SRT have been announced so far, but it's widely hoped it will try to find a way to insert V8 Hellcat engine into the new Charger coupe and sedan, which are currently only available with electric drivetrains and turbocharged 3.0-litre straight-six Hurricane petrol engine.
Hopes have been raised since Mr Kuniskis returned to run Ram in late 2024. In June he announced the 5.7-litre Hemi V8 would return the 1500 ute range after year-or-so away.
"Everyone makes mistakes, but how you handle them defines you. Ram screwed up when we dropped the Hemi — we own it and we fixed it," he said at announcement.
This week announcement of SRT's revival and the elevation of Mr Kuniskis to oversee Dodge, Ram, Jeep and Chrysler is a real back-to-the-future moment. Mr Kuniskis held a similar role in 2014 when these brands were part of Fiat Chrysler, and is widely credited with championing the Hellcat V8 project.
MORE: Everything Jeep
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
There's a new CEO in charge at Stellantis, and he's bringing back the racing department that developed the supercharged Hellcat V8.
Antonio Filosa, who took charge of the French-Italian-American automotive conglomerate in late June, has been slowly announcing his executive and senior management team.
He has promoted Tim Kuniskis, currently head of Ram, to oversee all of its North American brands, which also include Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler.
Mr Kuniskis will also head up the revived Street and Racing Technology (SRT) division that was shuttered in 2021 not long after Fiat Chrysler merged with the PSA Group — parent of Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Opel and Vauxhall — to form Stellantis.
SRT will once again be put in charge of engineering performance models for all four North American marques. It will also take over Stellantis North America's racing operations, which include drag racing and, starting next year, the NASCAR Truck Series.
In its past life SRT made vehicles like the Dodge Neon SRT-4, as well as the V10-powered Dodge Viper. Its most recent efforts were concentrated around the 6.2-litre supercharged Hellcat V8 engine, which was installed in the Dodge Charger sedan and Challenger coupe, Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, and Ram 1500 TRX.
The division also worked its magic on less fire-breathing V8 models, including those used in the Chrysler 300.
Although the SRT division was disbanded in 2021, the company continued to develop the Hellcat engine up until the demise of the third-generation Dodge Challenger and seventh-generation Dodge Charger. The Hellcat soldiers on to this day under the bonnet of the Dodge Durango Hellcat.
No plans for SRT have been announced so far, but it's widely hoped it will try to find a way to insert V8 Hellcat engine into the new Charger coupe and sedan, which are currently only available with electric drivetrains and turbocharged 3.0-litre straight-six Hurricane petrol engine.
Hopes have been raised since Mr Kuniskis returned to run Ram in late 2024. In June he announced the 5.7-litre Hemi V8 would return the 1500 ute range after year-or-so away.
"Everyone makes mistakes, but how you handle them defines you. Ram screwed up when we dropped the Hemi — we own it and we fixed it," he said at announcement.
This week announcement of SRT's revival and the elevation of Mr Kuniskis to oversee Dodge, Ram, Jeep and Chrysler is a real back-to-the-future moment. Mr Kuniskis held a similar role in 2014 when these brands were part of Fiat Chrysler, and is widely credited with championing the Hellcat V8 project.
MORE: Everything Jeep
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
There's a new CEO in charge at Stellantis, and he's bringing back the racing department that developed the supercharged Hellcat V8.
Antonio Filosa, who took charge of the French-Italian-American automotive conglomerate in late June, has been slowly announcing his executive and senior management team.
He has promoted Tim Kuniskis, currently head of Ram, to oversee all of its North American brands, which also include Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler.
Mr Kuniskis will also head up the revived Street and Racing Technology (SRT) division that was shuttered in 2021 not long after Fiat Chrysler merged with the PSA Group — parent of Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Opel and Vauxhall — to form Stellantis.
SRT will once again be put in charge of engineering performance models for all four North American marques. It will also take over Stellantis North America's racing operations, which include drag racing and, starting next year, the NASCAR Truck Series.
In its past life SRT made vehicles like the Dodge Neon SRT-4, as well as the V10-powered Dodge Viper. Its most recent efforts were concentrated around the 6.2-litre supercharged Hellcat V8 engine, which was installed in the Dodge Charger sedan and Challenger coupe, Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, and Ram 1500 TRX.
The division also worked its magic on less fire-breathing V8 models, including those used in the Chrysler 300.
Although the SRT division was disbanded in 2021, the company continued to develop the Hellcat engine up until the demise of the third-generation Dodge Challenger and seventh-generation Dodge Charger. The Hellcat soldiers on to this day under the bonnet of the Dodge Durango Hellcat.
No plans for SRT have been announced so far, but it's widely hoped it will try to find a way to insert V8 Hellcat engine into the new Charger coupe and sedan, which are currently only available with electric drivetrains and turbocharged 3.0-litre straight-six Hurricane petrol engine.
Hopes have been raised since Mr Kuniskis returned to run Ram in late 2024. In June he announced the 5.7-litre Hemi V8 would return the 1500 ute range after year-or-so away.
"Everyone makes mistakes, but how you handle them defines you. Ram screwed up when we dropped the Hemi — we own it and we fixed it," he said at announcement.
This week announcement of SRT's revival and the elevation of Mr Kuniskis to oversee Dodge, Ram, Jeep and Chrysler is a real back-to-the-future moment. Mr Kuniskis held a similar role in 2014 when these brands were part of Fiat Chrysler, and is widely credited with championing the Hellcat V8 project.
MORE: Everything Jeep
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
There's a new CEO in charge at Stellantis, and he's bringing back the racing department that developed the supercharged Hellcat V8.
Antonio Filosa, who took charge of the French-Italian-American automotive conglomerate in late June, has been slowly announcing his executive and senior management team.
He has promoted Tim Kuniskis, currently head of Ram, to oversee all of its North American brands, which also include Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler.
Mr Kuniskis will also head up the revived Street and Racing Technology (SRT) division that was shuttered in 2021 not long after Fiat Chrysler merged with the PSA Group — parent of Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Opel and Vauxhall — to form Stellantis.
SRT will once again be put in charge of engineering performance models for all four North American marques. It will also take over Stellantis North America's racing operations, which include drag racing and, starting next year, the NASCAR Truck Series.
In its past life SRT made vehicles like the Dodge Neon SRT-4, as well as the V10-powered Dodge Viper. Its most recent efforts were concentrated around the 6.2-litre supercharged Hellcat V8 engine, which was installed in the Dodge Charger sedan and Challenger coupe, Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, and Ram 1500 TRX.
The division also worked its magic on less fire-breathing V8 models, including those used in the Chrysler 300.
Although the SRT division was disbanded in 2021, the company continued to develop the Hellcat engine up until the demise of the third-generation Dodge Challenger and seventh-generation Dodge Charger. The Hellcat soldiers on to this day under the bonnet of the Dodge Durango Hellcat.
No plans for SRT have been announced so far, but it's widely hoped it will try to find a way to insert V8 Hellcat engine into the new Charger coupe and sedan, which are currently only available with electric drivetrains and turbocharged 3.0-litre straight-six Hurricane petrol engine.
Hopes have been raised since Mr Kuniskis returned to run Ram in late 2024. In June he announced the 5.7-litre Hemi V8 would return the 1500 ute range after year-or-so away.
"Everyone makes mistakes, but how you handle them defines you. Ram screwed up when we dropped the Hemi — we own it and we fixed it," he said at announcement.
This week announcement of SRT's revival and the elevation of Mr Kuniskis to oversee Dodge, Ram, Jeep and Chrysler is a real back-to-the-future moment. Mr Kuniskis held a similar role in 2014 when these brands were part of Fiat Chrysler, and is widely credited with championing the Hellcat V8 project.
MORE: Everything Jeep
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has put USA back on top. Australia should follow his lead
Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
A China shock 2.0 is emerging to rock America
Yet instead of pursuing the policies needed to meet this threat head-on, the MAGA agenda is heavily focused on fighting the last war – on bringing manufacturing jobs lost to China and elsewhere back to the US. The challenge, Autor and Hanson argue, is not that of attempting to resuscitate the industrial might of a bygone age, but ensuring that the US is front and centre of the new technologies and able to convincingly harness them to its own ends. This endeavour is not obviously helped by Trump's scattergun approach to tariffs, punishing friend and foe alike, his propensity to alienate rather than co-operate with allies, the stupefying attacks on scientific research and the repudiation of foreign talent – once the very lifeblood of American advancement. Nor is it helped by the administration's casual disregard for the great asset of dollar hegemony which, bizarrely, Stephen Miran, Trump's chief economic adviser, seems to regard as in some way partly responsible for America's de-industrialisation. An administration seemingly hell-bent on fiscal ruin, and on weakening the dollar for the purposes of making US goods more competitive, doesn't exactly inspire international confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency asset. Loading China, by contrast, is investing heavily in the digital yuan as a way of internationalising its own currency, of offering an alternative to the fool's gold of cryptocurrency and of usurping the dollar for cross-border payments. Already, it is making steady progress. Why any longer should Brazil use the dollar for selling soybeans to China when Trump threatens the country with punitive tariffs for the sin of prosecuting his friend, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president? Why indeed should it employ the dollar at all when the US regularly uses its power for extraterritorial purposes? In the developing world, Western influence is waning fast; China has been quick and single-minded at moving into its place. China has many problems and challenges, from the demographic to the still-deflating credit and property bubbles. But its catch-up and overtake approach to the technologies of the future is already paying big dividends. As, too, is the aggressive expansion of China's universities sector, originally begun under Jiang Zemin's presidency in the late 1990s, and heavily focused on Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US-led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies as recently as 2007, judged by share of the world's most-cited research, while China led the US in three. However, by 2023, these rankings were reversed, with China leading in 57 of 64 key technologies, and the US in seven. 'China has built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains,' the ASPI says. All of the world's top 10 research institutions in some technologies are based in China, and are already collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. Now, globally recognised companies at the forefront of their industries – such as Huawei in telecommunications, BYD in electric vehicles and Longi in solar wafers – have come from nowhere in less than 30 years to achieve world-leading positions. Industrial policy in China has, moreover, deliberately targeted key choke points in the supply chain, such that the US was this week forced to abandon its ban on the export of H20 Nvidia chips to China in return for China lifting similar export restrictions on the rare earth minerals vital to many hi-tech industries. The Nvidia ban was completely pointless in any case, serving only to turbocharge Chinese attempts to develop alternatives. Autor and Hanson suggest that the correct response to the China 2.0 shock is for the US to act in unison with commercial allies such as the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia and South Korea. Loading Counter-intuitively, Chinese companies should also be encouraged to set up production facilities in the US and elsewhere, rather similarly to the way that China once enticed Western companies to do the same in China as a way of speeding up technology transfer. Replicating Chinese industrial policy by aggressively promoting innovation in new fields, as happened in America and Europe during the Second World War, could also help narrow China's lead. It scarcely needs saying that Trump's America is at present doing the opposite of all these things. But just because Trump has got his head buried in the sand doesn't mean other nations should do the same. The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. If China gets there first, it will reshape the world in its own image, and 'the end of history' will look very different from the one outlined by Francis Fukuyama back in 1992, when he declared the final triumph of liberal democracy.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A China shock 2.0 is emerging to rock America
Yet instead of pursuing the policies needed to meet this threat head-on, the MAGA agenda is heavily focused on fighting the last war – on bringing manufacturing jobs lost to China and elsewhere back to the US. The challenge, Autor and Hanson argue, is not that of attempting to resuscitate the industrial might of a bygone age, but ensuring that the US is front and centre of the new technologies and able to convincingly harness them to its own ends. This endeavour is not obviously helped by Trump's scattergun approach to tariffs, punishing friend and foe alike, his propensity to alienate rather than co-operate with allies, the stupefying attacks on scientific research and the repudiation of foreign talent – once the very lifeblood of American advancement. Nor is it helped by the administration's casual disregard for the great asset of dollar hegemony which, bizarrely, Stephen Miran, Trump's chief economic adviser, seems to regard as in some way partly responsible for America's de-industrialisation. An administration seemingly hell-bent on fiscal ruin, and on weakening the dollar for the purposes of making US goods more competitive, doesn't exactly inspire international confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency asset. Loading China, by contrast, is investing heavily in the digital yuan as a way of internationalising its own currency, of offering an alternative to the fool's gold of cryptocurrency and of usurping the dollar for cross-border payments. Already, it is making steady progress. Why any longer should Brazil use the dollar for selling soybeans to China when Trump threatens the country with punitive tariffs for the sin of prosecuting his friend, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president? Why indeed should it employ the dollar at all when the US regularly uses its power for extraterritorial purposes? In the developing world, Western influence is waning fast; China has been quick and single-minded at moving into its place. China has many problems and challenges, from the demographic to the still-deflating credit and property bubbles. But its catch-up and overtake approach to the technologies of the future is already paying big dividends. As, too, is the aggressive expansion of China's universities sector, originally begun under Jiang Zemin's presidency in the late 1990s, and heavily focused on Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US-led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies as recently as 2007, judged by share of the world's most-cited research, while China led the US in three. However, by 2023, these rankings were reversed, with China leading in 57 of 64 key technologies, and the US in seven. 'China has built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains,' the ASPI says. All of the world's top 10 research institutions in some technologies are based in China, and are already collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. Now, globally recognised companies at the forefront of their industries – such as Huawei in telecommunications, BYD in electric vehicles and Longi in solar wafers – have come from nowhere in less than 30 years to achieve world-leading positions. Industrial policy in China has, moreover, deliberately targeted key choke points in the supply chain, such that the US was this week forced to abandon its ban on the export of H20 Nvidia chips to China in return for China lifting similar export restrictions on the rare earth minerals vital to many hi-tech industries. The Nvidia ban was completely pointless in any case, serving only to turbocharge Chinese attempts to develop alternatives. Autor and Hanson suggest that the correct response to the China 2.0 shock is for the US to act in unison with commercial allies such as the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia and South Korea. Loading Counter-intuitively, Chinese companies should also be encouraged to set up production facilities in the US and elsewhere, rather similarly to the way that China once enticed Western companies to do the same in China as a way of speeding up technology transfer. Replicating Chinese industrial policy by aggressively promoting innovation in new fields, as happened in America and Europe during the Second World War, could also help narrow China's lead. It scarcely needs saying that Trump's America is at present doing the opposite of all these things. But just because Trump has got his head buried in the sand doesn't mean other nations should do the same. The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. If China gets there first, it will reshape the world in its own image, and 'the end of history' will look very different from the one outlined by Francis Fukuyama back in 1992, when he declared the final triumph of liberal democracy.
