EXPERT REACTION: How will Trump's decisions affect the world?

Each new U.S. president brings changes to space policy that reflect their party’s priorities, significantly influencing Australia’s access to space markets and partnerships. For example, President Obama shifted NASA’s focus away from lunar exploration to asteroids and Mars, while President Trump revived lunar missions through the Artemis program, established the U.S. Space Force, and introduced the Artemis Accords, which Australia joined to strengthen bilateral collaboration. President Biden has continued Artemis while emphasizing climate observation, ethical space norms, and expanding global access, aligning well with Australia’s goals for sustainability and workforce development in space.

However, evolving U.S. policies, such as “America First” approaches, a move away from sustainable policies for the environment and potential foreign tariff changes, could limit Australian companies’ access to the US market.  Fortunately, Australia’s own advancements in space infrastructure and technology offer opportunities for resilience and growth in the commercial space sector.  It could potentially have the effect of boosting business with other nations.  We won't know the scope of possible effects until a full space policy is released by the Whitehouse.  It's not encouraging to see that the website of the US National Space Council currently has a 404 not found message displayed. 

Sustainable and clean energy movements go beyond political agendas and decisions. While political actions can influence the pace or direction of these initiatives, they cannot halt the momentum of this global shift, which is driven by compelling economic, environmental, and technological reasons. 

For instance, when former President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, it raised concerns about its impact on clean energy efforts. This decision undoubtedly slowed some U.S.-based renewable energy industries, particularly those focused on non-fossil energy generation. However, it’s important to note that such actions do not negate progress altogether.

Trump’s $500 billion investment in AI technologies, for example, could actually accelerate the integration of renewable energy into our energy ecosystems. One of the biggest challenges for renewable energy is not just generation but effective integration into existing energy grids. AI has the potential to solve these problems by enabling smarter, more efficient energy management, which is critical for reducing carbon emissions. Without robust integration systems, renewable energy cannot reach its full potential in contributing to a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, the global clean energy movement is not solely dependent on the U.S. Many other nations are seizing the opportunity to lead in renewable energy innovation and claim a larger share of this valuable market. The shift toward sustainability is inevitable, and while political decisions may alter the pace, the broader movement will continue to gain strength and adapt to challenges.
 

The AI roller coaster is set to reach new highs. In part, this is because Donald Trump has announced the 'largest' artificial intelligence infrastructure project in history, an additional $500 billion to be invested in 'Stargate', a new AI infrastructure company. But also because Trump repealed Biden’s executive order on AI which was providing some oversight and regulation.

I fear here the triumph of toxic tech capitalism, with AI supercharging the sort of surveillance capitalism that social media first introduced. What I fear is not just an attack on privacy, and of increasing inequality within our society, but for the very fabric of our democracy as misinformation and disinformation flourish, and the very rich take ever more control.

The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation and the Paris climate agreement is extremely disturbing.

The rationale for our participation in the AUKUS agreement was that the USA was a force for good in the world, while China is a one-party nation with its own development trajectory. Those moves by the Trump administration, as we face a global climate emergency and the possibility of another pandemic, should provoke an urgent reassessment of our relationship.

The Australian Peace and Security Forum, a new organisation formed a year ago, is holding a webinar in early February to question the AUKUS agreement and promote the need for an independent national security strategy. As a responsible global citizen, we should be reaffirming our commitment to international responses to the global problems of climate change and pandemics.

One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to repeal the Biden executive order on AI risk, and then to encourage new investment in AI infrastructure. There is some geopolitical posturing in this move. But it also signals a gloves-off approach to AI innovation. It may amplify the new administration’s disdain for diversity and inclusion policies. The rest of us shouldn’t get swept up in the hype that ‘general AI’ is just months away.

The Trump Administration has fired the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), effectively ending its investigation of the major Salt Typhoon hacking campaign that has been widely reported in the media. The Salt Typhoon hacks have reportedly breached major telecommunication networks. These breaches have been a major revelation with worldwide impact. These include the Australian Cyber Security Centre issuing guidance to Australian telcos to better secure themselves, in the wake of these revelations. 

The Cyber Safety Review Board includes many cybersecurity leaders and luminaries. It was created by the Biden administration to provide guidance on cyber threats, including investigating major cyber incidents, to help improve cyber security within the government and business. 

It is imperative for organisations to understand cyber threats and the CSRB’s investigation of Salt Typhoon would have provided an important source of information to help Australian critical infrastructure better protect itself from state-sponsored cyber attacks. Therefore, firing the CSRB and ending this investigation is disappointing to see, especially at a time when state-sponsored hacking activity is on the rise.

If the CSRB continues, it is important that it comprises independent experts. If it is to cease, it is imperative that a similar body, staffed with fearless and impartial expertise, is reconstituted in its place.

The US and Silicon Valley are important hubs for tech-based products. Many technological advancements and software products come from the US. Hence Trump’s executive order on revoking ‘responsible AI and Safety of AI’ will have adverse effects globally and Australia will be impacted by it too.

The US and Australia are allies. We have many ongoing collaborations on sensitive projects including defence applications with our American partners. In Australia, we are bound to follow the mandatory guidelines for safety and ethical applications of AI. Now that the same doesn’t apply to our US-based collaborators, we wouldn’t be able to continue working with them as effectively and efficiently as before.

One important mandate for us would be following the guidelines for ethical and responsible implementation of AI which is indispensable and necessary; however, our ally wouldn’t have to go through the same pathway. This will make our collaborations very tricky.

On another hand, the tech products that are US-made and used in Australia might not comply with the Australian government’s guidelines and we will need to put a ban on them in the future. Another adverse effect of this executive order is the spread of misinformation and disinformation all over social media since there would be no guardrails implemented to stop them. We as the users must be more vigilant.

A dangerous tech-oligarchy is tightening its grip on politics as Trump’s new presidency ushers America’s tech titans into the political spotlight. We are witnessing an unprecedented fusion of wealth, technological power, and political influence — one that will shape the trajectory of AI, the U.S., and the global economy. The values of this elite group will permeate their corporations, technologies, and ultimately, the lives of ordinary citizens through the digital tools they create.

At Trump’s inauguration, key figures such as Zuckerberg (Meta), Bezos (Amazon), Pichai (Google), and Musk (Tesla) were given exclusive seats, signalling their pivotal role in shaping policy. Within hours, the Capitol became a hub for elite wealth, Trump-ites, and tech powerhouses, including Tim Cook (Apple), Shou Zi Chew (TikTok), and Sam Altman (OpenAI). The values held by these individuals will influence their organisations, and their technologies, and filter through to end-use products.

On day two of his presidency, Trump announced a $500 billion AI-initiative titled 'Stargate'. This ambitious project, aimed at bolstering AI infrastructure, will be led by Altman (OpenAI), Larry Ellison (Oracle), and Masayoshi Son (SoftBank), with an eye toward advancing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and creating sprawling data centres.

However, the environmental implications of such a project reveal the stark values of this new alliance. Massive energy consumption, prioritised over sustainability, echoes Trump’s policy 'Drill, baby, drill!' ethos. These decisions showcase a willingness to build now and confront the fallout later, placing profit and technological dominance above global responsibility.

As traditional capitalism gives way to 'Tech-Feudalism,' a new digital aristocracy is emerging. This blend of political authority and technological omnipotence risks evolving into a modern-day digital dictatorship, wielded by a politico-techno patriarchy with far-reaching implications for freedom, equity, and democracy itself.

Trump administration’s investment in AI comes along with deregulation, with Trump aligning with dominant tech players in the United States. This deregulation spans key areas such as AI safety, equity, diversity, and online disinformation, which will exacerbate harm for communities that experience different levels of vulnerability.

Australia is not well-equipped to respond to these forthcoming changes from the US, given the widespread reliance on American technological infrastructure within the country, the voluntary nature of AI safety standards, and the abandonment of the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. Even if enacted, the Bill itself is insufficient to effectively address the growing challenges of online disinformation. 

There’s also been a resemblance between American and Chinese technologies, particularly in terms of state intervention. Interestingly, American technologies, which have long emphasised a commitment to neoliberalism, often deny or downplay the extent of the government’s involvement in their development and regulation.

This dynamic now also highlights an interesting parallel in how both nations’ technologies are shaped by state priorities, albeit framed within contrasting ideological narratives. For example, the proposed ban of TikTok due to its ties to China and the delay under Trump’s administration.

I have also observed public speculation, particularly on Chinese social media platforms like WeChat and RedNote, regarding whether Peter Dutton might emerge as the Australian Trump and what such a development could mean for Australia’s immigration and foreign investment.

Trump has announced the investment of significant public money in AI at the same time as he is rescinding AI safety legislation. The AI safety legislation was designed to prevent common AI harms, including biased decision-making, invasion of privacy, inaccurate information and loss of income. These harms disproportionately fall on minoritised groups: people of colour, women, the LGBTQIA+ community, people with disabilities, and low-income people, among others.

The removal of protections against these harms, and the investment Trump has promised means AI Is likely to develop very fast in the US, but in directions that benefit only a small segment of society. These changes will result in interesting social and legal challenges for other countries, including Australia, as we decide whether untested and potentially unsafe US-developed AI can be used within our borders.

Other countries may also feel pressure to remove protections, so as not to 'fall behind'; such an approach would leave those most negatively affected by AI extremely vulnerable.

President Trump’s stance on investments in AI and a vision for space exploration is very welcome. Both the advancements of AI and an inspirational plan for the role of humans in the future of space are a significant leap forward. These declarations in the US do have significant implications for Australia and the world, given that there is already a race globally in both AI and space.

As Australia is a close ally of the US, these announcements will hopefully stimulate a more ambitious position for our nation to contribute to AI research and technology development for local and global benefit as well as re-igniting investment in space research and to support the local space industry.

Currently, there is no direction for Australia to position itself as a contributor (let alone a world leader) in AI innovation, despite being in the top 10 globally (per capita) in terms of academic research outputs in the field of AI. Also, there has not been any vision declared for our country in terms of space, but through collaboration with our closest ally, there could be significant opportunities in such areas as space manufacturing, robotics and automation to stimulate substantial economic and societal benefit.

An interesting dynamic to observe during this term will be what happens between social media platforms and their owners. While all were on-stage together at the inauguration, Trump, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg all own different social media platforms (Truth Social, X, and Facebook respectively), and so will have competing commercial interests. How they manage this conflict alongside their need to work together on other issues will play out throughout the term.

Furthermore, we are already observing a trend towards “cyberbalkanisation”, with users across the political spectrum migrating to different platforms (including newer ones like Bluesky since the election). We can expect this to continue, potentially exacerbating online polarisation.

The Stargate AI Project that Trump announced is reminiscent of the Microelectronics and Computer Consortium (MCC) from the early 1980s. The MCC was a defensive response by the US government and private industry to counter Japan's Fifth Generation Computing Project launched in 1982, with the aim of creating advanced AI.

In retrospect, it seemed like the beginnings of an AI “arms race.” The Fifth Generation Computing Project ended in 1994 and the MCC ceased operations in 2000. Neither side achieved their goals, even with massive funding. Is the Stargate AI Project a challenge to potential AI advancements by China?

The Trump administration is probably right to be betting big on AI. The growth of AI capability has been dramatic, and the implications of transformative AI are something that the next Australian government will have to grapple with.

Australians express higher levels of concern about AI-risk than any other nation. A significant portion are worried about the potentially catastrophic outcomes highlighted by leading experts. Delivering on Australia's commitment in the Seoul Declaration by creating an AI Safety Institution should be a top priority.

President Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreements will be extremely detrimental to polar regions. The Paris Climate Agreements are still the only legally binding international treaty in relation to climate change. These agreements conserve our global environment, not just the places within each country’s borders, such as our oceans and polar environments. The polar regions need conservation and global environmental policies now more than ever. Antarctica is already undergoing vast changes with our polar oceans warming, freshening and becoming more acidic faster than anywhere else on Earth. These delicate ecosystems are on the brink of an irreversible shift.

The biggest hurdle with the conservation of these regions is meaningful change and policies regarding climate change from countries that are large carbon dioxide producers, such as the United States. By withdrawing from these agreements President Trump has essentially turned his back on effective environmental policy and any real conservation of these isolated and unique environments. The effects of President Trump withdrawing from these agreements will have long-lasting impacts on these fragile environments for decades, if not centuries, to come.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement brings into question the effectiveness and long-term viability of global climate initiatives and multilateral treaties. Then, it is likely to draw greater attention on the climate commitments of other countries, including Australia.

However, as seen with local governments in the U.S., Australia and other countries can respond by reinforcing their own climate policies. The regression of climate agreements will disproportionately affect vulnerable regions, particularly conflict-affected communities. This could drive increased refugee and asylum-seeker flows to Australia and other countries, highlighting that climate action is linked to social and economic stability.

The US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a major blow to the global climate change negotiations. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will impact the whole world given the significance of US emissions to the global climate and has consequences also for Australia.

However, as we saw last time, there is a massive groundswell of climate action in America with accelerating action across local and state governments and the private sector. Climate change adaptation is increasingly needed too, especially with the latest hurricanes and LA fires reminding us what living in a changing climate means.

Australia now needs to focus on its own adaptation efforts and show leadership in making policies and decisions that keep our communities safe in a changing climate.

President Trump has clearly signalled his desire to swing a wrecking ball through climate policy. His slogan 'Drill baby drill' and America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement reflect the return of climate denial.

While there’s no good news here, it’s important to remember that:

• Greenhouse gas emission trends are shaped by wider economic and technological trends, more than by presidential rhetoric. US fossil fuels surged under Biden, despite his climate-friendly rhetoric. Greenhouse gas emissions fell during the first Trump presidency (as coal lost ground to fossil gas and renewables, and the COVID pandemic reduced economic activity) despite Trump’s efforts to torpedo climate policy.
   
• The Biden Administration’s unprecedented investments in clean technologies will continue to reduce emissions even if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed. Given the economic benefits that Biden’s climate and industry policies have delivered to Republican districts, repeal may be politically difficult.
   

Both Democrats and Republicans have long supported investments in energy innovation. A Republican-dominated Congress may well continue Biden’s investments in geothermal and nuclear energy. Republicans may also advance reform of interstate-transmission permitting that might enable greater utilisation of renewable energy.

These far right, anti-social actions were predictable. The rise of extreme ideologies is in fact a growing weaponisation of ‘environmentalism’ and international citizenship as a political ideology rather than goals that should be instead viewed as self-preservation and planetary protection.

The severity of commitments required to address climate change and global inequalities has led to public backlash and further ideological entrenchment, typified by the new American government actions. Such policies are also symptomatic of a dwindling democratic process that has been replaced by extreme plutocratic capture of government that promotes quick profit to a few rather than making good, long-term decisions benefitting the most people.

Trump’s actions might be able to slow down decarbonization in the US, and to a lesser extent the world, but they cannot halt the now inevitable decarbonization pathway of the global economy. They will also reinforce China’s position as a global leader in green technologies, a development that stands to benefit many countries.

The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization is an enormous blow to global health governance. The US is the WHO’s single largest donor and for it to remove its funding will cause massive financial implications for the organisation, meaning that it will be severely compromised in its fundamental roles and responsibilities. The links between global health and climate change are clear, and with the double whammy of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, we are likely to see substantial reductions in financial commitments and, thus, efforts, when these withdrawals go into effect in a year’s time.

What does this mean in practice? It means that other countries, and also governance at other scales, will carry a heavier burden to respond to the concurrent threats of challenges to global health and climate change impacts on global health. We cannot allow this decision by the US to impede our efforts. In fact, we must all be supporting our governments, as well as all other actors, including in the private sector, as well as engaging with communities as fully as possible to ensure that we do, in fact, act with the urgency that’s needed in this critical decade.

Under the provisions of the Paris Agreement, any party – including the US – is able to withdraw from the Paris Agreement by giving written notice to the designated 'depository', the UN Secretary-General. The withdrawal of the US will not take effect immediately; it's only official after one year from the date the UN Secretary-General receives the notification of withdrawal.

Technically, then, the US may continue participating as a party to the Paris Agreement – including negotiating at the next Conference of the Parties (COP30 in Brazil) – up until late January 2026. After that (if the US continues to be a party to the Paris Agreement's parent convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) it can only participate as an observer at Paris Agreement meetings. 

Potentially this makes the US a much less disruptive force for multilateral climate action than if it were staying on as a Paris Agreement party (like Saudi Arabia). At this stage, there is no indication that other countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement are preparing to follow Trump out the door (despite a lot of huffing and puffing from the Argentinian president and a dramatic walkout of the Argentinian delegation at COP29 in Baku).

The decision to withdraw can also be easily reversed. Another incoming US President could simply issue an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement (as the Biden administration did following Trump I).

Overall, this is probably the best of the options we could expect from Trump on international climate action. The US remains a party to the UNFCCC (withdrawing from that could not be easily reversed given the need for Senate approval of treaties) but its capacity to interfere will be muted allowing other countries to take the lead, and seize the momentum, on climate leadership over the next 4 years.

Despite the blow to international cooperation on climate action that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement makes, there will be some silver linings for Australia. Investors will be looking elsewhere for climate finance opportunities if Trump is able to shut down Biden’s support for renewables through the Inflation Reduction Act.

But, ultimately, climate change is a global problem that doesn’t respect borders, and so a ‘drill, baby, drill’ mentality, and pulling out of the best hope for global cooperation through the Paris Agreement, is bad news for us all.

The American withdrawal from the Paris climate agreements will embolden political and business interests in Australia who have been pushing to further reduce the country’s commitment to combatting climate change. They will be thrilled to have this extra ammunition to deploy in domestic policy debates.  It will have a similar effect on the rest of the world, including the fast-growing economies of Asia. Here, vested interests will use the American withdrawal to alleviate themselves from any pressure to commit to environmentally sustainable development practices. Hence, a free pass has been given to those invested in extractive and natural resource-based industries often causing deforestation, soil and water degradation and the displacement of local peoples on behalf of alliances of politico-bureaucrats, local billionaires and sometimes even militaries.

The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement signals a troubling shift toward isolationism and undermines decades of global progress on climate action. The US retreat risks further retreat by nations already resistant to climate commitments and could potentially trigger a domino effect that could derail global efforts. 

The question now is whether other global powers such as the EU or China will step up to fill the leadership void – or if the U.S. retreat will mark the start of a race to the bottom on climate inaction. 

For Australia, the US move not only complicates diplomatic and trade relationships but also exposes Australia to greater climate risks. As a highly climate-vulnerable nation, Australia depends heavily on international collaboration to address the economic and environmental challenges posed by a warming planet.

It’s disappointing to see Donald Trump sign an executive order to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement. Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change is good for the environment, for our health and for the economy, and I’m sad to see a leader walking away from these options. Our hottest years on record were 2023 and 2024, and the world does not have time to play games with climate change. 

However, every person, every family, every council and every state can take action to stop things getting any hotter. There are great initiatives happening everywhere in Australia and America to stop the reliance on fossil fuels. So many of us understand the risks of climate change and what must be done. I’m determined to be confident we will still see global climate action regardless of what happens in the White House. We can’t afford not to.

After pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement, the new President has now also ordered for the US to leave the World Health Organization. This will hurt both WHO, the US, and global health security.

The US is WHO's biggest donor, contributing over $1 billion every year. That money goes to improving the health of millions of people globally – from working to eradicate diseases like polio and tuberculosis, to supporting countries to strengthen their health systems, to responding to the health impacts of climate change.

By leaving WHO, the US would lose its voice at the World Health Assembly (which convenes all Ministries of Health every year). The US would no longer be part of the negotiations on the global Pandemic Treaty, and the country and its many health agencies would lose access to critical health information.

The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that we need global collaboration and solidarity if we want to address the global health challenges of our time. A single country cannot be safe (or hide behind a wall) unless the rest of the world is safe.

President Trump’s assertion that there are only two genders is scientifically inaccurate and disregards the complexity of human biology and identity. Research demonstrates that gender exists on a spectrum, not a binary. For instance, intersex individuals are born with traits that challenge simplistic binary notions of sex. Additionally, gender identity is distinct from biological sex, with an increasing number of people identifying beyond the binary. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that 5% of young adults in the United States identify as transgender or nonbinary, and the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that 262,000 people identify as nonbinary or another gender. This reflects growing awareness, reduced stigma, and institutional recognition of diverse identities.

Trump’s reductive stance perpetuates discrimination and marginalisation, causing harm to gender-diverse individuals. Gender discrimination contributes to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among transgender and nonbinary people. It also reinforces systemic inequalities by limiting access to healthcare, education, and employment.

To combat these harms, allies of the LGBTQI+ community can advocate for inclusive policies, support organisations promoting gender diversity, and amplify the voices of affected individuals. Solidarity and education are essential to uphold equality and human rights.

Trans people have always existed and will always continue to exist. The recent changes in the US perpetuate discrimination and worsening inequity which is devastating for the trans community. Research consistently shows that trans people experience higher rates of mental health challenges, with depression and anxiety affecting over 70% and suicidal ideation over 5-fold the general population. These challenges are often driven by a combination of societal and systemic factors, including discrimination, stigma, and a lack of access to gender-affirming care. We know that there are also protective factors, such as strong social support, access to gender-affirming care, and community engagement, that can mitigate these challenges and foster resilience.

Improving the mental health of transgender people requires addressing systemic discrimination, increasing access to affirming care, and creating supportive environments where transgender people can live authentically and safely.

I hope that with time, education and community solidarity we can achieve equitable health and wellbeing and we can all live in an environment free of violence and discrimination.

The WHO supports health interventions across the globe, including pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. With recent modelling predicting greater risk of pandemics in the future, reliable funding and financial support of the WHO will be essential for managing our global health. In the 2022-23, the US was the top contributor to the WHO with ~US$1284 million.

This is over US$425 million more than the next highest contributor (Germany) and represents 25.6% of the funding from the top 10 funders for that period. With member states, such as the US, making up 60% of the WHO program budget, and with expected costs for 2022-23 of US$ 6726 million, the lack of contribution from the US will leave a significant hole in the ability to meet budget targets and global health goals.

The WHO is recognised globally as a peak body to 'promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable'. The irrational withdrawal of the USA from the WHO now makes the USA vulnerable to decreased human capital and quality of life on all health indicators, lack of guidance on informed health emergencies, depleted health literacy and increase in  non-communicable and communicable diseases. It will impact WHO funding for medical and scientific research. With USA international travel this potentially increases the disease risk for Australia making everyone globally vulnerable. The USA withdrawal and lack of fact-checking on social communication platforms, may lead to an ill-informed and biased health agenda for those also ignorant of public health discourses. It sets a precedent for other  regimes dissatisfied with global cooperation. USA has been a powerful advocate. Now more than ever globally WHO needs all informed influential  voices at the table. Sustained global cooperation and expertise is required to mitigate future disease outbreaks and pandemics. Constructive collaborative dialogue is the hallmark of great leadership. This irrational impulsive decision puts us all globally at risk.

Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party, and their majority in both houses of Congress, could mean the most radical shift in US politics this century. 

Trump’s rhetoric in foreign policy is alarming, but it's worth remembering that when previously in office he proved to be more of an isolationist than an interventionist. 

Trump's accession is causing alarm in Kyiv and muted rejoicing in Jerusalem. The world has become a more unpredictable - and dangerous - place.

Donald Trump can't do much about stopping the Net Zero transition that is well underway globally. There is over US $2 trillion already invested in the transition with at least $80 trillion being planned. The leading companies in Europe, China and the US are not pulling back as they are good commercial projects and Australia is clearly a big player in both the minerals needed and the adoption of solar, batteries and EVs that are driving the first decade of this transition.

The equity issues of the US Government withdrawal are an issue as the US is a major contributor to the UN Climate Fund designed to assist the Global South in both its transition and their resilience to massive climate change. Perhaps one of the key issues is that the LA fires exposed a major problem in global insurance and if climate denialism becomes a feature of US governments and it spreads to other countries, then there could be a collapse in global insurance that will undermine the whole of the world economy, if not the whole of civilisation.

So, there are serious consequences in global climate denialism but at this stage the horse has bolted on the net zero transition which started in 2016 with the Paris Agreement. After nearly a decade of recognising that this was an economically better way to build cities and regions, there is no possibility of the US doing anything much, other than losing global leadership in the next economy.

Australia’s position with the United States is a strong one with extensive trade, military and cultural ties that are long standing and mutually reciprocal. It is both Australian Labor and Liberal policy to align itself very closely with Washington. It is unlikely in the short term to make any difference to Australia’s position; in fact, a Trump administration may enhance it. As the government in Washington severely upsets its links with its closest neighbors and polarizes the world in a one sided and unhelpful manner, so the American administration will cast about for friendlier allies such as Australia who may benefit simply for not being Canada or Mexico.

In addition, the United States has doubled down on its commitment to combatting China in the Asia Pacific region through its nebulous, uncertain and so far, failed policy of ‘China containment’. Australia is a major part of this policy directive and a key alliance partner. The AUKUS partnership and submarine deal which Marco Rubio in meeting with Penny Wong yesterday resolutely committed the new administration to is a recognition of the ongoing reality in the US for both Republicans and Democrats that their military and resources alone are not enough to counter the perceived threat from China. Despite the noise and smoke, Donald Trump is a transactional operator who, in the end, cannot afford to upset relations with too many partners. In the short term, Australia has little to fear from the new presidency.

The Global Minimum Tax (GMT) was developed at the OECD to address profit shifting brought on by a set of tax rules designed well before the digital age. New technologies have facilitated tax avoidance through profit shifting to low-tax havens which resulted in tax-based competition among countries to attract foreign investment. The GMT establishes a minimum tax rate of 15%, reducing the impact of tax policy as a basis for investment decisions and levelling the global playing field. By reducing the incentive for companies to shift profits to low tax jurisdictions, the OECD estimated that an extra US$220 billion (AU$315 billion) in tax income would be available globally. Agreed to by more than 135 countries in 2021, after years of painstaking negotiations, the GMT has been one of the few bright spots in global cooperation in recent years. Even countries who had previously operated as tax havens, including Ireland, Switzerland, Luxemburg and Barbados, have signed on to the global agreement. This policy has never been popular among US digital giants as they are among the most effected companies. Thus, the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement will undermine its effectiveness and all but ensures the likes of Amazon, Apple and Meta continue to evade paying taxes in jurisdiction in which they operate, including Australia.

Donald Trump's removal of the United States from the WHO and the Paris Accords damages the standing of the US as a global leader. The United States is a global leader in vaccine development and biological research and removing the country from the WHO will threaten any response to the myriad public health crises that are emerging across the world. Trump's mismanagement of the COVID pandemic proved the risk of not taking public health seriously, and ended up costing lives and money. His removal from the Paris Accords sets a dangerous precedent as we need a global commitment to reducing the threat of climate change, and seems especially shortsighted in light of the wildfires in Los Angeles that were made worse by the impacts of climate change.  Removing one of the world's largest carbon emitters from any commitments or plans to reduce our impact on the global environment will of course have damaging impacts on its own, but the bigger concern is the cover that Trump now gives to other countries, particularly other large emitters, to reduce or remove their own commitments, which in turn lead to worse outcomes for Americans, Australians, and people around the world. 

Trump's investment in AI is at once a practical step forward in ensuring that the United States remains a competitive leader in the most important technological advancement of our time. These investments are needed and we should welcome them - and Australia should follow suit. We've seen the risk to national security and to society that undeterred AI development by hostile regimes can do, and we can't beat that by asking entire societies to become Luddites. However, I am concerned by Trump's rescinding of the AI safety executive order that President Biden signed. The world is still grappling with the rush of advancement on AI, and much of the field is being developed with only commercial interests in mind rather than the interests of the people. It's the job of the government to advance the interests of the people, and building computer systems that disrupt free speech while enriching a new class of oligarchs is dangerous, but not the only available path. We can and should have both: massive investment in AI infrastructure and rules in place to ensure that new technology is developed that helps the people these governments serve. 

Trump's order on gender is ridiculous. The fact that the President of the United States is so focused on a tiny percentage of the population, a group he is unlikely to ever meet in real life, is sad. His campaign spent more than $200 million dollars on ads attacking the trans community, which does nothing to address the real problems facing the United States and offers a dangerous precedent for other world leaders to continue attacking marginalized communities around the world.

The Trump presidency will make the world a much less secure place for many people and nations, including Australia. His refusal of international cooperation and scientific knowledge accelerates already pressing global challenges. Without strong support of the WHO, for instance, we are less well prepared for the next pandemic. And as devastating fires from Perth to Los Angeles show, coordinated global climate action is urgently required. Trump also undermines the very foundations on which wealth and progress rested during the last few decades: democracy, international coordination, and non-violent conflict resolution. Catering to autocrats like Putin, starting new trade wars, supporting extremist and violent settlers in the West Bank, and pardoning the Capitol rioters are some very concerning steps in this regard, and I am sure they are not the last ones.

The move by US President Trump to ban remote working among federal employees makes what has been a growing trend worldwide into government policy. A growing number of employers, including in Australia and Europe have been calling employees back into the office - if not necessarily banning remote working altogether. This is in part a response to concerns about the impact of remote working on corporate culture, knowledge sharing, productivity and the need to make full use of expensive real estate. However, these moves may also have an unexpected negative impact on productivity and capacity to recruit high quality employees as research has shown a growing number of individuals rank capacity to work from home as a critical factor impacting on their decision to apply for a position/stay in a position. 

It is unlikely this 'forced change' is likely to make its way to Australia. While social trends do travel between regions, the critical issue is each country has its own employment laws, customs and trends directly related to their respective cultures, political climate and economy. They are often based on longstanding social trends and legal obligations. Similarly, they may reflect a country’s geography: remote working is ideally suited to remote communities in Australia, where a complete ban would immediately have a negative impact on employment opportunities for highly talented workers in the regions. Likewise, it would deny Australian employers access to those workers. Ultimately, HR policies may well 'travel' across national boundaries, but by their very nature must reflect national economies, traditions and social norms.

Donald Trump has shown on his first day in office that he plans to continue to fuel division, distrust and polarisation in America and across the globe. Where Presidents have traditionally used their first days in office to bring the country together, promising to lead for all Americans, not just those who voted for them, Trump in his usual unorthodox style is showing he plans to continue to do the opposite by stoking an “us versus them” culture of fear, hatred and division. This is evident in his continued culture war against science, truth and expertise, demonstrated in his withdrawal from the WHO and the Paris climate agreement. His decree that there are only two genders is further evidence that his presidency is rhetorically and symbolically invested in directing hate and intolerance towards minorities, such as non-binary people. These are very dark days for American society and the whole world because this divisive culture permeates the global community, with innumerable detrimental effects on social cohesion, trust, respect, tolerance, the strength of democracies, and positive collective responses to global problems.

President Trump’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) raise important questions for global policy discussions, including in Australia. While Australia's policy landscape is distinct, its potential impact on higher education institutions is worrying.

The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success focuses on using the best evidence to ensure that disadvantaged students are supported in higher education. In the US, the scaling back of DEI initiatives presents a concerning shift that could undermine years of progress in advancing educational equity. If similar sentiments gain traction here, they could jeopardise the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion in universities.

Australia generally accepts that the paths to a university education are not always even or smooth for all members of society. Regional and remote would-be students, for example, have to contend with universities that are many hundreds of kilometres distant. So, equity programs aimed at them focus on overcoming that objective barrier. 

The Trump-inspired backlash presupposes that there is a level playing field and yet there is considerable evidence to call his instinct into question. Moreover, improving and broadening access to universities brings benefits not just to the individuals affected but also to the communities they come from and to the larger productive base of the economy.

Trump’s inauguration speeches and his slew of executive orders on his first day in office should be sending alarm bells across the world – especially for America’s close allies like Australia. 

The openly imperial ambitions of taking the Panama Canal and Greenland will increase global tensions, whilst withdrawing from key multilateral institutions like the WHO and the Paris Agreement will usher in a further decline, if not the end, of liberal international order. 

Executive orders now permit drilling in Alaska, have defunded the EPA, and seek to deregulate environmental protections in the name of addressing the energy crisis. This, along with the dismantling of clean energy subsidies, is central to the interests of the oil lobby. 

Rather than ‘draining the swamp’, Trump appears to be willing to pollute it.

Other executive orders focus on internal authoritarianism, such as expanding capital punishment, denying citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and revoking policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The use of the phrase ‘manifest destiny’ in Trump’s speeches is also important. It carries not only the colonial history of American exceptionalism, but also its use of force. The promise to plant the American flag in Mars carefully recalls America’s heyday – crafting nostalgia, power, and authoritarianism to mark this presidency.

Trump claims he will be able to bring industry back to the US – but this will be almost impossible given the state of de-industrialisation in the US, labour costs and its lack of skilled labour in key areas. 

The inability to meet this promise is likely to cause greater dissatisfaction amongst his MAGA base, which Trump may likely try to deflect with culture wars and/or attacks on minorities, with nationalistic grandstanding and imperial ambitions abroad.

A recent poll in the NYT showed a worrying consensus among Americans that the system was broken. This crisis of legitimacy will not only effect American democracy but the democratic project globally.

Donald Trump’s actions pose serious concerns for national security broadly.

Health Security: Actions taken by Trump on Day 1 will have resounding effects across the world for public health. For example, roughly 18% of the World Health Organisation’s funding comes from the United States, so a U.S. withdrawal directly hurts global efforts to eliminate health threats while also engaging in important preventative efforts. Similarly, the re-classification of sex as a dichotomous metric (“male” or “female”) means that individuals born as intersex persons will face challenges getting the care that they need, both medically and socially – it should be noted that estimates suggest intersex births account for 2% of births in the U.S (see: link).

Climate Security: The decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement sets the entire world on a very dangerous and unstable path forward. Research has shown that drastic steps are needed to reduce the levels of global temperature increases; failure to achieve these reductions will have sweeping societal impacts. With too dry climates, food supplies shrink and we see increases of food deserts, cost of living increases as populations move in response to shifting climates, energy levels needed increase exacerbating already crisis-level demands in some areas, and so much more. In my recent paper, my colleague and I actually documented how climate change directly impacts terrorist targeting decisions (see: link), so Trump’s actions actually negatively impact national security both at the U.S. and global levels.

Political Violence: As an expert on terrorism and security studies, the area that is most  concerning to me is the blanket pardoning/commuting of individuals associated with the Capitol Insurrection. In doing so, Trump is signalling that criminals who violently attacked law enforcement officers who were just doing their jobs to secure the Capitol complex and criminals who caused millions of dollars in damages to the Capitol grounds do not need to face the justice system for their actions. In eliminating justice proceedings and sentencing for the Insurrectionists, Trump is signalling to Far Right extremists that hatred will have some level of tolerance in the United States, which goes against the very core of democratic institutions and the principles of justice and equal treatment under the law.

Overall, many of the Day 1 executive actions have long-term implications on security for the U.S. and the global community.

The recent Executive Order from President Trump, pausing the resettlement of refugees, has profound implications for those overseas awaiting safety, plus relatives in the US waiting to be re-united with loved ones. Refugee-led interventions play a vital role in this process. The participation of refugees in matters that affect them is essential, as they bring unique perspectives and solutions based on their lived experiences.

Empowering refugees to lead and participate in these efforts reduces uncertainty, fosters resilience, and ensures that their voices are heard, and their needs are met effectively. This suspension has left many in a state of excruciating uncertainty, undermining their hope and trust in the international community. For refugees who have already endured significant trauma, this added uncertainty deepens psychological distress, fear, and feelings of abandonment.

The recent Executive Order from President Trump, pausing the resettlement of refugees, has profound implications for those overseas awaiting safety, plus relatives in the US waiting to be re-united with loved ones. Despite these challenges, it is crucial to maintain hope. Advocacy groups and international organisations continue to work tirelessly to support refugees, push for durable solutions and the resumption of the resettlement program.

The trauma of indefinite delays—coming after rigorous vetting processes and promises of resettlement—is overwhelming. For many, trust in systems designed to protect and support them erodes, exacerbating feelings of hopelessness and isolation. Beyond mental health impacts, their physical well-being is also jeopardised as they remain in precarious environments without access to stable resources or safety. We hope that the resettlement program will resume in some form, allowing refugees to find the safety and stability they desperately need. The resilience and strength of refugees, combined with ongoing advocacy efforts and refugee-led initiatives, can help sustain hope for a brighter future.