20 October 2025

The PM arrives in Washington for long-awaited meeting with Trump

| By Andrew McLaughlin
Join the conversation
21
Anthony Albanese Trump selfie

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is aiming for more than a selfie with President Trump. Photo: Instagram.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese returned from his week off on Sunday and immediately jetted off to Washington, DC, for a third attempt at his previously cancelled meetings with US President Donald Trump.

This visit was organised on the sidelines of last month’s UN General Assembly in New York, and comes after two previous attempts for the leaders to meet were thwarted for various reasons.

The first planned meeting at June’s G7 conference in Canada was abandoned after the President returned to Washington earlier than expected to deal with Iran and the Gaza crisis.

He had given no notice to any of the other leaders that he would be leaving early; it was only revealed in a social media post later that night.

Hope that the two would get together at the UN also came to naught, with the President’s schedule leaving no room for any formal bilateral engagement. But the two did briefly cross paths at an evening social event, and the obligatory Albo selfie was taken as evidence.

The Federal Opposition has roundly criticised Mr Albanese for his inability to get a meeting with Mr Trump, especially in the face of issues such as tariffs, tensions with China, Israel’s attacks on Gaza, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The PM and several senior ministers countered the Opposition’s criticism by describing the failure to meet at the G7 as “completely understandable” given the tensions in the Middle East at the time.

But the UN “snub”, as some have described it, was less easy to explain, with some interpreting it as being in response to Australia’s formal recognition of Palestine’s statehood.

READ ALSO High number of bullying and harassment complaints made last year in the ACT Public Service

There’s no doubt the two leaders have much to discuss. The AUKUS construct between Australia, the UK and the US is at a very delicate point, with the results of an ongoing review by the US into plans to sell Australia at least three Virginia-class nuclear submarines from 2032 still unknown.

Some analysts have described the future of the AUKUS Pillar 1 plan as “perilous” because of the US’s ongoing inability to ramp up submarine production to sufficient quantities for its own needs, let alone for those of Australia, despite Australia already investing some $2 billion into the US’s industrial shipbuilding base.

The supply of rare earth metals is also front and centre, with China threatening to stop exports of these materials to the US.

Rare earths are required for high-tech equipment such as lithium batteries, silicon chips and other sensitive and advanced electronics, and China currently mines, processes and supplies more than 75 per cent of all of the globe’s rare earths.

Trump has warned of plans to add 100 per cent tariffs to all goods imported into the US from China in response to its threats, but seems to have walked that back in recent days.

But Australia also has vast untapped reserves of rare earths, and this may be a card Mr Albanese could play to gain favour with the President and perhaps leverage to get things moving on AUKUS, and to have a more favourable hearing on other issues like tariffs on Australian goods such as pharmaceuticals and steel.

Mr Albanese’s visit will be his seventh to the US as Prime Minister, but his first official visit with President Trump. He will be accompanied by Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia Madeleine King, and Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science Tim Ayres. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is also in the US at the moment, as is Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy.

“Australia and the United States have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in every major conflict for over a century,” Mr Albanese said in a statement, citing a well-worn trope.

“Our meeting is an important opportunity to consolidate and strengthen the Australia-United States relationship.”

READ ALSO Government targets crypto ATMs and ‘mule’ student bank accounts

On Monday morning (20 October), Assistant Minister for Immigration Matt Thistlethwaite wouldn’t be drawn as to the expected substance of any discussions between the two leaders.

“I’m not going to pre-empt what the discussion topics will be, but I think you’ll find that our Prime Minister will continue to advocate for Australian businesses and exporters that have been affected by the United States’ tariff regime,” he told Channel 9’s Today program.

“I think that there’s good congressional support for AUKUS in the discussions that I’ve had with both Republican and Democratic congressional representatives.

“I think that Australia is in a good position, because we do have those many deposits of rare earths,” he said, adding that the Government would “welcome capital investment” from the US.

Speaking to CNBC on Sunday, Dr Chalmers said Australia was concerned about the US’s tariffs.

“We have raised our concern over the course of recent months about the impact on the global economy,” he said.

“The global economy is obviously going through a period of great uncertainty. The tariffs are part of that, but not the only source of that uncertainty.”

On the issue of China and its threats over rare earth exports, Dr Chalmers said the whole global economy is watching very closely what’s happening.

“It’s our view that nobody wins from a trade war, that tariffs are ultimately self‑defeating,” he said.

“But clearly, we’re monitoring what’s happening. And I think it’s noteworthy that in a week where we saw a very substantial de‑escalation in the Middle East, we saw an escalation of trade tensions between the US and China, and that’s obviously of great concern to everyone gathered here in DC.”

It should be an interesting week.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

21
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Trump is a diplomat. Won’t attack Albo unless he can get something for it. Doesn’t mean he isn’t paying attention.

Trump might have overlooked Rudd, they’re going to be looking into that

“Trump is a diplomat”….Bwhwhahahahahaaha….you mean the same dude how has turned friends like Canada into adversaries and sucks up to America’s enemies like Russia?

Trump is a self-serving clown.

Faulty nuke subs by 2090, US to strip Aus of rare earth minerals for favours but save the planet and go green. US does not care about Aus apart from using it as a future forward operating base

Stephen Saunders7:24 am 21 Oct 25

The meeting looks like a big win for Albanese, removes a “barnacle”, and just puts the Ley Liberals further behind. Not much point in Ley trying to make Rudd the issue.

Well it looks like the meeting will finally happen. Albo’s best move would be to immediately apologise for Australia’s attacks on Israel, support for Palestine, the anti-Semitic environment that’s been created back here in Australia, the personal attacks on Trump and reverse our kowtowing to an increasingly hostile China. Perhaps after that, normal service could resume.

But there’s been so much damage to the relationship that it’s hard to envisage normal service resuming. For the sake of AUKUS, ANZUS and our national security hopefully i’m wrong.

Thankfully Albo is an adult and not listening to culture warriors on the internet.

Must be tough for the non-critical thinkers reposting “Coalition” talking points to see Trump gushing over Australia as Albo inks a new minerals deal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-21/donald-trump-and-anthony-albanese-meet-in-washington/105914030

And to be banging on about national security when even the transactional and in it for himself Trump sees the importance of Australia…geez that must be embarrassing.

Kudos to Albo for pushing Australia’s economic interest and getting the rare earth minerals deal. A strategic and economic win. I won’t bother trying to explain to you the China implications within the deal (there’s too many moving parts) but this has positive long term bilateral implications.

It was also a relief to see Trump reaffirm the commitment to AUKUS, including nuclear submarines. The Pentagon review should be finished by year’s end. “ I think it’s really moving along very rapidly, very well” according to Trump.

You’re correct about the embarrassment and we did get the apology – from Kevin Rudd. Surely this is the political put down of the year: “I don’t like you and I probably never will.” Next plane Kevvie, get your bags packed.

“A strategic and economic win. I won’t bother trying to explain to you the China implications within the deal”…I literally just pointed them out to you. Dig up Penfold. lol

The only person I see embarrassed here is you having once again gone off half cocked, pushing far right wing nonsense, completely obviously to what’s actually happening and looking the fool as events unfold.

The constant Penfoldian self-owns are my favourite part of this forum.

That’s odd seano, you’re post didn’t seem to mention China, though perhaps “Dig up” (sic) was some sort of cryptic China or mining reference.

Another great outcome of the meeting was that despite the authors concerns, the re-affirmation of Australia being nuclear powered once those Virginia Class subs come on board, if you’ll pardon the pun. It means the parliament will need to change the legislation banning nuclear power and it’ll open the door for a nuclear powered Aussie future. Go you good thing.

I do love how petty you are Penfold, incorrectly using (sic) whilst yourself using the incorrect your lol, how embarrassing.

As to your claim, “And to be banging on about national security when even the transactional and in it for himself Trump sees the importance of Australia”….I did actually mention national security.

Having been embarrassed…again…I see you’ve now gone off on your usual red herrings and nonsense.

This new Australia/US rare earth minerals deal has nothing to do with nuclear energy in Australia, it won’t change the economics of nuclear power in Australia or resolve any of the myriad of issues with nuclear power that I’ve raised with you previously and to which you’ve not responded….because you can’t…not least of which is that the QLD LNP govt has said no reactors in QLD.

Comically clueless as always Penfold.

Penfold wrote: “It means the parliament will need to change the legislation banning nuclear power”

Why? Which part of the legislation “needs” to be changed to use the submarines, Penfold? These are the relevant Acts:
– Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
– Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Tell us which clauses need to be changed. Knock yourself out.

By the way, here are the Acts to allow for the submarines:
– Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 [and] Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

They do not mention nuclear power plants for the electricity grid.

Really, what on earth do you think you are you on about this time? You do get very confused.

seano your first three sentences are a struggle to understand, perhaps you might be battling TDS today along with spellchecker. In fact you even seem to be quoting your own claims and attributing them to me e.g. “And to be banging on about national security when even the transactional and in it” (sic).

Regardless, on issues aquatic I’m not sure about these red herrings. Part of AUKUS includes the provision of nuclear submarines. Fyi these are powered by nuclear energy. I hesitate to bring too many moving parts into discussions with you but once we’ve got nuclear subs we’re going to need to manage, maintain and service them. This means trained people, facilities, spare parts, disposal systems and …. wait for it seano …. fuel.

Now those nice Rolls Royce Pressure Water Reactors are very efficient and don’t need much refuelling, but it requires U-235 of at least 93% purity. Now here’s the kicker seano …. Uranium is often found within rare earth deposits, and can be extracted as a by-product of rare earth mining, a process known as unconventional resource recovery.

So when you claim there’s no link between AUKUS and nuclear, sadly you’re mistaken again. Just trying to clue you in, hope it worked 😊

Penfold it’s beyond pathetic that you seek to correct others whilst seemingly not knowing which “your” to use.

“Fyi these are powered by nuclear energy” FYI so what?

It’s nothing to do with nuclear energy in Australia, we already have legislation in place to cover the subs as Axon has helpfully pointed out to you. Yet again you’re talking though your hat.

“So when you claim there’s no link between AUKUS and nuclear, sadly you’re mistaken again. Just trying to clue you in, hope it worked”

There isn’t lol. It is currently not legal to build a nuclear reactor in Australia. Building such a reactor would require state and federal legislative changes and even if that happened…and stay with me here because I know you don’t like to face reality…it doesn’t change the economics of nuclear energy in Australia.

The Energy Generators & Retailers, for profit companies have said they won’t invest in nuclear because it’s too expensive, too slow and too risky. The QLD LNP government have said no nuclear reactors in QLD. The Australian electorate voted Dutton, standing on a platform of nuclear energy, out of his seat. Beclowning yourself by pretending sub reactors and nuclear energy to power the grid are the same thing won’t change this reality.

Game over.

Axon – in the same way Albo got a compliment this morning it appears you deserve one too. It appears, prima facie, that the legislation does not need changing. Good googling. However there will be quite some new regulations required and the good news is that this will open the way for the introduction of our looming cradle-to-grave nuclear power industry. And apparently it’s going to mean creating more than 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years.

“These regulations are an important part of our approach to building a fit-for-purpose legislative and regulatory framework for Australia’s future conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarines.” Not much of a leap from there to the growing global nuclear industry is there.

https://www.asa.gov.au/news/public-consultation-opens-australian-naval-nuclear-power-safety-regulations

seaso – wish I could compliment you too but sadly couldn’t find anything to compliment. AUKUS, rare-earth minerals and nuclear power are all closely aligned, for those who can join the dots. But it’s humorous to see your list of copy-and-paste talking points being used again without any relevance to the discussion.

” However there will be quite some new regulations required and the good news is that this will open the way for the introduction of our looming cradle-to-grave nuclear power industry.”

No it won’t be nuclear subs and nuclear power are not the same thing. Adults know this, I’m not sure why you’re struggling here.

I repeat my points (not talking points straight from the Liberal Party website like…*checks notes*…yours) because you have yet to counter any of them.

– Nuclear is not legal in Australia, it would require state and federal legislative changes. Which is very unlikely.
– The QLD LNP have rejected reactors in QLD. A that’s a bit of a problem for someone pretending that nuclear power will happen in Australia.
– The Energy Generators & Retailers have rejected nuclear power, they won’t be investing because it’s too expensive, too slow and too risky.
– The Australian public already voted on an LNP platform of nuclear power and they said no so loudly that Dutton lost his seat.
– Nuclear is the most expensive form of power, while renewables get cheaper every year.
– No appropriate sites have been identified. Nuclear requires a lot of water and somewhere to dump super heated water without damaging the local environment. Quite the problem in a hot dry country like Australia where the population is largely on the coast and doesn’t want a nuclear power station built nearby.
– Electorates that the LNP claimed would host nuclear reactors rejected them, it’s not just QLD that doesn’t want them, neither does the Hunter.
– There has been no realistic plan as to what to do with the nuclear waste, an inconvenient problem just glossed over by the LNP and their boosters but a huge on going problem in all countries that actually have reactors.
– LNP’s nuclear plans rely on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) unfortunately there are only two commercialises SMRS in the world, both in authoritarian states both massively government subsidised (China and Russia). The problem with SMRs is they don’t cost that much less to build than full scale reactors and they don’t generate enough energy to justify the cost.

I could go on by you won’t respond SENSIBLY (key word) to any of these points because you can’t. Nuclear is a just a distraction it will never happen in Australia.

Game over.

How can the game be over twice, did it go into overtime ?

I do love the confidence of someone saying something will unequivocably, never, happen in Australia. And try to claim sensibility at the same time.

So let me claim, sensibly, that nuclear power will certainly happen in Australia. Much like is happening around the world 🌎

A smarter chap might have been sensible enough to put a sunset clause on your claim because you know the funny part ?

I can never, ever be proven wrong and you can never, ever be conclusively proven right. On that fact the game is certainly over 🤣👏🔥

You haven’t challenged even one of the issues I’ve raised, each one a game ender on it’s own.

The complete lack of counter argument (because you haven’t got any) and the vacuous insertion of emojis is Penfoldian for “I give up”.

Beclowning yourself further won’t dismiss the facts I’ve posted above, nuclear will never happen in Australia.

Game over.

Perhaps you might be kind enough to highlight a fact you’ve posted.

(hint: claiming nuclear won’t happen isn’t one) 🙂

Puerile Penfold. You can’t challenge any facts I’ve presented above so you adopt these sorts of childish tactics and yet still expect to be taken seriously.

The idea that you’re a lefty plant trying to make the right look bad is not without merit.

What a surprise 😮 can’t present a fact.

But I love the way you claim to never resort to personal attacks 🤣 🫣

Persisting with these puerile tactics ignoring the things I have said whilst making up claims about personal attacks. How weak.

Tell me you’re losing without telling me you’re losing Penfold. Maybe more emojis? lol.

You haven’t challenged any of these facts because you can’t make a SENSIBLE (keyword) argument against any of them:

– Nuclear is not legal in Australia, it would require state and federal legislative changes. Which is very unlikely.
– The QLD LNP have rejected reactors in QLD. A that’s a bit of a problem for someone pretending that nuclear power will happen in Australia.
– The Energy Generators & Retailers have rejected nuclear power, they won’t be investing because it’s too expensive, too slow and too risky.
– The Australian public already voted on an LNP platform of nuclear power and they said no so loudly that Dutton lost his seat.
– Nuclear is the most expensive form of power, while renewables get cheaper every year.
– No appropriate sites have been identified. Nuclear requires a lot of water and somewhere to dump super heated water without damaging the local environment. Quite the problem in a hot dry country like Australia where the population is largely on the coast and doesn’t want a nuclear power station built nearby.
– Electorates that the LNP claimed would host nuclear reactors rejected them, it’s not just QLD that doesn’t want them, neither does the Hunter.
– There has been no realistic plan about what to do with the nuclear waste, an inconvenient problem just glossed over by the LNP and their boosters but a huge on going problem in all countries that actually have reactors.
– LNP’s nuclear plans relied heavily on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) unfortunately there are only two commercialised SMRS in the world, both in authoritarian states both massively government subsidised (China and Russia). The problem with SMRs is they don’t cost that much less to build than full scale reactors and they don’t generate enough energy to justify the cost.

Game over.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.