Peta Credlin: Australia will lose US security blanket without Albo increasing military spending
Don't miss out on the headlines from News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Forget help from the US marines rotating through Darwin, forget intelligence from the joint Space Facility at Pine Gap, and certainly forget the promised delivery of Virginia-class nuclear subs.
If we don't lift military spending to the 3.5 per cent of GDP, that the Trump administration demands as a minimum of all US allies, we can still expect to be a potential target but we can't expect any help to defend Australia.
Put yourself in US shoes for a moment. Why should their sons and daughters put their lives on the line to defend Australia when we're refusing to help ourselves? And, whatever you think about their patriotism, which tends to be more demonstrative than ours, at least they're less at risk of raising a whole generation of young people who are taught to hate their history, their flag and their country as we are here.
After years of increasingly strident badgering, America's NATO allies have just agreed to lift their military spending to 3.5 per cent and to lift all defence-related spending to 5 per cent of GDP. This was in response to President Donald Trump's expressed reluctance to commit to NATO's 'one-in, all-in' Article 5 security guarantee.
Partly, this was to placate an unpredictable and transactional president. And partly, it's apprehension that an America that's tired of being the world's policeman might just leave them in the lurch should Russia broaden its aggression after finishing off Ukraine.
But if this is how Trump treats France, a nuclear power; and Germany, Europe's economic titan, how do we think he would treat us? Especially as the Albanese government has shown zero willingness to offer the military help that the US thinks it has a right to expect and that Australia has always given in the past.
It's almost impossible to overstate the extent to which the Albanese government has misread the signals out of Washington and the strategic isolation to which we are now exposed. Turning down the December 2023 request to send a frigate to the Red Sea was perhaps the Albanese government's most egregious mistake.
It was first time Australia had refused an American request for military help since the ANZUS treaty in 1951. Naturally, it was almost unnoticed here but it was seismic in a Washington.
It was, after all, the Hawke government that sent clearance divers to help the US-led liberation of Kuwait; the Howard government that sent special forces, strike planes and a frigate to help the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein; plus special forces, a mentoring task force and a reconstruction team to help the US-led campaign against the Taliban; a military effort that the Rudd and Gillard governments amply continued; and the Abbott government that sent special forces, strike planes and military trainers to help the US-led campaign against Islamic State.
Not only has the Albanese government ostentatiously declined to give credible military help; it's consistently voted against the US at the UN on Israel; it's appeased China on trade; and it took 24 hours before it tepidly and half-heartedly backed last weekend's attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facility.
But the fundamental problem is the Albanese government's repeated and obstinate refusal to entertain any increase at all in Australia's military spending.
The Prime Minister was at it again on Friday, blathering that taking a decade to lift defence spending to 2.3 per cent is sacrosanct because 'we put forward our budget, we took it to an election and received overwhelming support'.
As JM Keynes famously said: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' And the facts have changed, as even the UK Labour government has recognised.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, in every other respect our PM's green-left ideological soulmate, rushed to Washington in February and pledged to lift British defence spending to 2.7 per cent now and 3.5 per cent by the early 2030s.
Sooner or later, Albanese won't be able to keep shirking a face-to-face meeting with the leader of the free world – despite a personal distaste for Trump that's becoming only-too-obvious. When a Labor frontbencher in 2017, he said of the then first-term president: 'He scares the shit out of me'; and plainly he meant it.
Eventually, he'll have to face up to a meeting with our main ally but is almost certain to get an Oval Office blast in the absence of the defence boost that's so plainly needed. And, yes, we do need to get much better value for our defence dollar too, noting that Australia spends more on defence than Israel but has nothing remotely approaching the Israeli armed forces' capabilities.
Without a swift boost to military spending and capability, the charge that will haunt this PM is that he would prefer us to be an economic colony of China than a military ally of the United States. THUMBS UP
B-2 bomber pilots – With two pilots per aircraft, in a single mission last Sunday, these brave Americans made the world safer and deserve our heartfelt gratitude. THUMBS DOWN
Jacinta Allan – Victorian Labor's new draft laws to fine farmers $12,000-plus if they refuse to allow new transmission lines on their land are criminal. This is what Net Zero really means!
Watch Peta on Credlin on Sky News, weeknights at 6pm
Originally published as Peta Credlin: Australia will lose US security blanket without Albo increasing military spending

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
28 minutes ago
- West Australian
THE WASHINGTON POST: Trump vows swift action to overturn nationwide court injunctions blocking his policies
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post


Perth Now
30 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump hails Supreme Court ruling as go-ahead for his agenda
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knew US would strike Iran but not when, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was aware the US was planning strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but did not know the exact timing, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal. The US strikes hit key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan last weekend, before President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Mr Albanese then waited more than 24 hours to issue an explicit statement of support for the strikes, after initially calling for 'dialogue' and 'de-escalation'. It was not until after a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet that Mr Albanese fronted the media and confirmed Australia backed the US action. Critics have seized on the delay as evidence of hesitancy and weakness in Canberra's alliance with Washington. Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor said the government was exhibiting 'anti-US alliance' sentiments, due to lacklustre support for the strikes. 'This was the right thing for the United States to do, Israel was entirely entitled to take action against Iran,' Mr Taylor told Sky News on Thursday. 'It was well within the rights of Israel to do what it did … the United States has played a very deft hand in the approach it's taken on this." Former prime ministers Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott also weighed in, arguing that Mr Albanese should have immediately and publicly endorsed the strike. 'If you're in the United States and you take an action like this… you'd want to know your allies were with you 100 per cent,' Mr Morrison said. Mr Albanese has defended the government's handling of the situation, noting that Australia is 'not a central player' in the Iran-Israel conflict. 'We run an orderly, stable government,' he told reporters, repeatedly declining to comment on intelligence matters. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously. But we've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.' At the same time, the broader Australia–US relationship has come under renewed scrutiny, amid calls for the Albanese government to lift defence spending. The United States and NATO allies committed last week to increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. While Defence Minister Richard Marles attended the NATO summit, Mr Albanese stayed in Australia, declining to attend after rumours he may go in order to meet President Trump. Australia has committed to defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP - well below NATO's new target and the 3.5 per cent requested directly by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Well, we have increased our defence investment,' Mr Albanese said on Friday. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.' Government sources have privately expressed scepticism about the NATO targets, suggesting some countries inflate their defence figures by including roads and other infrastructure costs.