‘Hugely successful': Donald Trump praised for ‘dealing with' Iran
This comes amid Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong's trip to the United States.
'I don't think she is right; I don't think President Trump envisages a different role for the US,' Mr Downer told Sky News host Danica De Giorgio.
'He's dealing with a coalition of countries … Russia, China, Iran, and also, one should include North Korea.
'He's proved hugely successful in dealing with Iran.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘I have more power': Donald Trump flexes after huge win in Congress
A law that will have sweeping effects across the United States. And about as clear an expression of Donald Trump's political power as we have ever seen. Today America's House of Representatives passed Mr Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', the gargantuan piece of budget legislation that contains much of the President's domestic agenda. That includes the extension of tax cuts, funding for immigration enforcement measures, and cuts to Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for low-income Americans. It contains other stuff as well – the thing is almost a thousand pages long, after all – but those are the headline elements. Merits of the bill aside, its passage through Congress today is indisputably a political flex. While Mr Trump's Republican Party controls both the House and the Senate, in the former chamber, its majority is precipitously narrow. And enough Republican members of Congress to scupper the legislation had expressed firm opposition to it, mostly citing its projected multi-trillion dollar cost to America's already bloated federal debt. Yet after days of bickering, and grandstanding, and presumably the odd twisting of an arm behind the scenes, almost all of those members ultimately voted for it anyway. A mere two of them remained immovable in their opposition. 'Rarely have so many members of Congress voted for a measure they so actively disliked,' veteran political journalist Susan Glasser noted in The New Yorker afterwards. Speaking to the media a short time afterwards, Mr Trump was in a jubilant mood. 'You met with a lot of House Republicans yesterday. What got them to yes?' a reporter asked him on the tarmac. 'I think when you go over the bill, it was very easy to get them to a yes,' Mr Trump replied. 'Biggest tax cut in history. Great for security. Great on the southern border. Immigration is covered. We covered just about everything. It's the biggest bill ever signed of its kind.' To be clear, though, the concerns of recalcitrant Republicans were never really addressed. The bill's ballooning effect on America's deficit remains. The worries about political consequences from kicking millions of constituents off Medicaid remains. What happened here, and why it is such a demonstration of power from the President, is: a bunch of Republicans said the bill was unacceptable, Mr Trump did nothing to mollify them, and then they voted yes. In Australian terms, his argument was, 'Yeah nah, the bill is pretty good though mate.' And it worked! 'I think I have more power now. I do,' Trump said when asked about the contrast with his first term in office. That included some legislative wins, including the tax cuts that are now being extended. But Congress did defy Mr Trump on, for example, his effort to repeal the signature healthcare law of his predecessor, Barack Obama. 'You know, I could say, 'Oh gee, I don't know.' I think I probably do, because we have had the greatest record of success. 'We've proven certain things, and yeah, I think probably it's got more gravitas, more power.' Later in his exchange with the press, Trump discussed the bill's signing on Friday, US time. 'So we're signing at about five o'clock, and at about five o'clock, we're going to have B-2s and F-22s and F-35s flying right over the White House,' he said. 'And the Speaker and I and (Republican Senate Majority Leader) John Thune, we are all there together with most Republican senators and congressmen and women. 'And it's going to be a great day. So we'll be signing with those beautiful planes flying right over our heads, all right?' That puts the signing ceremony at about 7am AEST, should you wish to rouse yourself from bed on a Saturday morning to witness it. I should give you some examples of the backflipping here. Some illustrative remarks from the Republicans who crapped on the bill, then promptly turned around and voted for it. The two who did not engage in such impressive gymnastics are Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who was worried about the national debt, and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who didn't like the cuts to health spending. As for the rest, we have a litany of statements contradicted by subsequent actions. Congressman Keith Self, of Texas, said Speaker Mike Johnson and the others lobbying on Mr Trump's behalf were shoving a 'broken bill down our throats'. Mr Self called it 'morally and fiscally bankrupt'. He voted yes. Congressman Ralph Norman, of South Carolina, said it would 'mortgage our future'. Mr Norman voted yes. Congressman Andy Harris, of Maryland, called it 'not ready for prime time'. Yes. California Congressman David Valadao was among 15 Republicans who signed a letter stressing they 'could not support a final bill' that threatened people's access to healthcare. He, and all 14 other signatories, voted yes. Indiana Congresswoman Victoria Spartz said the bill violated 'the minimum fiscal framework, signed by over 30 Republicans, by roughly half a trillion dollars'. Voted yes. 'If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version (of the bill), I won't vote 'present'. I'll vote NO,' said Marlyand Congressman Andy Harris. He voted yes. Congressman Andrew Clyde, of Georgia, called the national debt a serious threat to 'the security, prosperity, and future of our country', vowing to 'fight until the very end'. A few hours later, he voted yes. Over in the Senate, Missouri's Josh Hawley called the legislation's cuts to health insurance 'morally wrong'. He voted yes. Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, warned that 'the deficit will eat us alive'. He voted yes. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the most consistently anti-Trump voice left in her caucus, said the bill was 'not good enough for the rest of our nation', and expressed her hope that it would be amended by the House after being passed by the Senate. She voted yes. And had she gone the other way, the bill would have died. Nothing above includes those Republicans who fumed over the chaotic process, such as Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who called it a 's***show'. To overcome all those objections from his own side of politics, without conceding anything? Quite the success for any politician. One last, telling example: Senator Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, who stood by his opposition to the bill's $US700 billion in Medicaid cuts and voted against it. When Mr Tillis announced his decision, Mr Trump promptly threatened to end his political career. The Senator instead chose to quit, abruptly saying he would not seek re-election. 'The choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington, or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family,' he said. ''It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election.'
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Public safety and national security come before a scoop
There are two things that should particularly exercise an editor's mind when deciding on the publication of certain sensitive reports. Public safety and national security. Many arguments can be made for providing readers with as much information as possible — that's the business we're in — but some lines are crossed and risk peril when they involve those two areas. It's a long time since the Australian media had to think about the consequences of operating as a restrained free press when the country is at war and might need to defend itself. And long may that continue. But even our Defence Minister just two weeks ago conceded Australia would be dragged in to support the US if it became involved in any Chinese attack on Taiwan. That's a likelihood some defence experts think could be only several years away. With the world holding its breath that an all-in conflagration won't break out in the Middle East after America's intervention to end the war between Israel and Iran, questions remain about whether President Donald Trump is the peacemaker he claims to be, or an opportunistic belligerent. That has caused divisions in Trump's support base because he promised a nation weary of fighting other people's wars that he would not take them into more foreign campaigns. The so-called 12-day war has also raised other questions about America's politically-riven society. It again exposed elements in the American intelligence community — what the MAGA movement calls the Deep State — and embedded in the Left media who would rather the USA be seen to fail than Trump be seen to have a win. That's not just Trump derangement syndrome. That's deeply unpatriotic. And potentially even worse if it led to harm. The editors at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times who decided to take on Trump over the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities based on leaked 'Top Secret' intelligence reports they had not seen, but had only been told about, went out on a limb. Reporters require very strong faith in a source — and usually need wider confirmation — to rely on what they are told about vital documents without seeing them. At the time details of this top-secret intelligence was published, America remained on the brink of being dragged into a precipitous war. There were potentially extreme consequences. The possibility of further American involvement resulting from those assessments of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities was a live issue. That is why the intelligence was done. Not for triumphalism, but to investigate the effectiveness of the bombing and the possibility that more might be needed. In other words, whether more Americans would have to risk their lives to finish the job. Iran had a strong interest in how much the Americans knew — or what they thought they knew. But the desire to score points against Trump was greater than the editors' caution to ensure what they might publish did not damage American interests. They decided it was acceptable to use it to contest Trump's assertion of 'obliteration' without worrying that they were effectively supporting Iran's attempts to make it appear that its nuclear program had not suffered a significant setback. One effect of supporting Iran in that cause was to weaken the pressure on it to stop fighting. And to suppress dissent against Iran's theocracy. Another perverse effect of the publication was to encourage people who hate Trump to cheer for America to fail. And Iran — the globe's biggest sponsor of international terrorism — to win? During the recent conflict, I spent a lot of time watching Qatar-based Al-Jazeera because they had a team of reporters in Tehran providing in-depth reports missing on other cable networks. The Al-Jazeera coverage was superior. I continued switching across to Al-Jazeera in the lead-up to Trump's appearance at the NATO meeting in The Hague which also provided an interesting perspective not available from usual news sources. For instance, there was fascinating live coverage of a joint press conference between the Qatari and Lebanese prime ministers a day after Iran had fired 19 missiles at the US air base just outside Doha. The swirling middle eastern politics at play between Qatar's friendship with Iran and its alliance with the US and Lebanon's involvement in hostilities with Israel reflected that old story about the scorpion and the frog. And then I chanced on live coverage of a presser between Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte — the former longstanding Dutch PM — with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence secretary Pete Hegseth sitting on the sidelines. Rutte began with some extraordinary gushing over Trump for his achievement of forcing NATO members to meet to lift their defence spending to five per cent of GDP. He said Trump had now achieved even more than in his first term when he put the blowtorch on the Europeans which, Rutte claimed, resulted in an extra US$1 trillion being spent on their defence needs. That was news. Reporters then asked Trump about the reports of the leaked intelligence. He didn't hold back: 'CNN is scum,' he said. 'MSNBC is scum. The New York Times is scum. 'They're bad people, they're sick. They've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less. They should not have done that. The pilots hit their targets and the pilots should be credited. They're not after the pilots, they're after me.' Trump then referred a question to Rubio who made a series of important points that need serious reflection by the media. Firstly, he confirmed the intelligence was marked Top Secret without saying that media sources need to justify releasing such information during hostilities. Avoiding giving any detail, which he is sworn to protect, Rubio argued intelligence of that kind always contained a range of scenarios especially when the collected information was not conclusive. Rubio said the leakers had cherry-picked only the most sceptical parts of the assessment, and the subsequent news reports 'mischaracterised' the conclusions. 'I hate commenting on these stories, because often the first story is wrong and the person putting it out there has an agenda,' Rubio said. 'That story is a false story, and it's one that really shouldn't be re-reported because it doesn't accurately reflect what's happening.' Good point. The farther the media reporting got from the original news reports, the more the 'intelligence' was taken as having been passed on truthfully. Those regurgitating the CNN-MSNBC reporting did not know the leakers — so could not question their credibility — were unaware of their motives or which parts had been leaked and which concealed. But the 're-reporting' contained no caveats on credibility, even though everyone knows the febrile animosity of CNN and MSNBC for Trump and his administration. Hegseth described the assessment as 'a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence.' That is completely lost in the re-reporting. CNN's original report makes it clear the network had not seen the intelligence assessment, claiming it had been 'described by seven people briefed on it.' The report suggests a patchwork of snippets. But even their sources clearly didn't see the actual document. Briefed? They may have just heard about it. The Times quoted 'officials familiar with the findings.' 'The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available,' CNN said, clearly acknowledging, but not being constrained by, its preliminary and inconclusive nature. 'But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.' And that was the only point they wanted to make. What the leakers wanted to achieve. Pure political point-scoring. 'This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN before publication, 'and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.' Maybe they did. Maybe not. The truth is still out there. But what is more certain is that the pertinent question about the effectiveness of one of America's most critical armaments — deployed for the first time — should be determined in a less dangerous environment. And not as part of a blatant political vendetta. It wasn't always like this. When the mainstream news media was not so partisan, more considered, less willing to trade national security for clicks. Evaluating the possible impact of a controversial news report is part of an editor's job. But it escalates from brand protection and reputational damage control to something much more important when the report involves national security, particularly during a conflict with the potential to expand.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
'Cruel' Trump move to shake Aussies' trust in US
Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect." Increasingly US-sceptic Australians might further question their nation's ties to the superpower as the impacts of Donald Trump's signature bill sweep through vulnerable communities. The US president's One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress on Friday, Australian time, enshrining significant cuts to health programs while funding income tax breaks and adding trillions of dollars to debt. America's wealthiest will benefit most from the bill while almost 12 million low-income Americans would be left uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and many could see their pay drop due to safety-net cuts. While the bill did not directly impact Australians, it would affect their perceptions of the US, according to Cory Alpert, an ex-staffer to former president Joe Biden. "This bill is going to hurt a lot of marginalised people," the Melbourne University researcher told AAP. "Australians are going to look at this and see the cruelty in it, and I think it's going to further drive this conversation about how close Australia is to the United States. "Where do Australians belong in the global conversation: as a floating aircraft carrier in the south Pacific, or as a more independent nation? How aligned do you want to be with Trump's America?" While Australia has positioned itself as a key US ally, cracks have also begun to show in the relationship. When asked recently if the US remained a reliable partner under Mr Trump's leadership, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia understood he had a "different view of how America is to be in the world". Australians' trust in the United States has already dropped by 20 points since 2024, hitting a new low with just 36 per cent of the public expressing any level of trust according to an April poll published by the Lowy Institute. In a speech to be delivered on Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will reassert Australia's independence in foreign policy while dismissing Trump-style isolationist policies. "Choosing our own way doesn't mean going it alone," he will tell an audience in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the death of former Labor prime minister John Curtin. "Australia did not just join the institutions which created the international rules based order, we helped shape them." The prime minister will draw comparisons between himself and the ex-wartime leader, saying Curtin did not just look to the US but spoke for Australia. The government has already rebuffed calls from Washington to dramatically increase its defence spending by tens of billions of dollars a year. Many analysts believe the Labor government's landslide election win in May was at least partly fuelled by voters' growing discomfort with the US president at a time when some of the coalition's talking points echoed Mr Trump's platforms. "(Australians) don't want to live in a country that espouses those same types of cruelties," Mr Alpert said. The size of Mr Albanese's victory meant he did not face significant pressure to shift his position towards the US president. But Mr Alpert said he would not be surprised if the government publicly supports some aspects of Mr Trump's latest measures, especially as it tries to negotiate an exemption from US tariffs. "We've already seen examples of that in Australia where leaders are trying to come up with positions where they can go to Trump and say, 'look, we're supporting your position, you should give us a better deal'," he said, pointing to Labor's decision to support US strikes on Iran. "That is probably the more dangerous aspect."
