Australian and South African publications view political changes in the United States as an event with far-reaching consequences. Will voter discontent push back against Trumpism? How long will the MAGA movement retain its influence? And what should allies expect from Donald Trump’s foreign policy? These questions are especially important for Australia and other partners, which must weigh the risks and opportunities in the economy, diplomacy, and security. Based on AFR (Australia) and Le Monde (South Africa).
Walmart backs Australia in dispute over U.S. lamb imports
America’s largest retailer, Walmart, has come out against possible tariffs on Australian lamb, exports of which to the United States are valued at about $1.6 billion a year. As Australian Financial Review reports, the company’s position takes on particular significance amid an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission and the upcoming meeting between President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
U.S. lamb producers are seeking import restrictions, arguing that foreign supplies are hurting domestic farms. Walmart, however, disagrees. The retailer has warned the Trump administration that tariffs would not effectively protect U.S. farmers, but would have consequences for consumers and retail chains: higher prices, less choice, and supply-chain disruptions.
For Australia, the dispute means much more than access to the market for a single product. Meat exports remain an important part of the country’s agricultural economy, and the United States is one of its most valuable markets, including for premium cuts such as racks of lamb and meat used for burgers. Potential tariffs threaten Australian producers and heighten concerns that U.S. trade policy is becoming less predictable, even toward Washington’s close partners.
Canberra and Washington are linked by a free-trade agreement as well as the AUKUS strategic partnership. Potential restrictions on Australian lamb are therefore seen in Australia not only as a commercial problem, but also as a test of the reliability of its economic ties with the United States. The situation is particularly sensitive for Albanese’s government: it must maintain close political and defense relations with the White House while protecting the interests of national exporters.
The U.S. International Trade Commission’s review is taking place just before the Trump-Albanese meeting, giving the dispute a diplomatic dimension. Australian officials are seeking to prevent agriculture from becoming a bargaining chip in America’s protectionist agenda. In Canberra, the outcome of the investigation may be seen as an indication of how effectively the government can defend the country’s commercial interests in its relations with a key ally.
Walmart’s support matters precisely because it comes from an influential American business, rather than a foreign government. The company shifts the debate from the narrow question of protecting local producers to broader concerns about consumer spending, inflation, and reliable supplies. The retailer’s argument is that restricting imports of Australian lamb would hit American consumers first, forcing them to pay more and choose from fewer products.
Europe should not expect a U.S. shift after Trump’s defeat
Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterm elections should not give Europe hope of a quick return to its former, more predictable relationship with Washington. That is the conclusion reached by the editorial board of the French newspaper Le Monde in its column “Europe can expect little from Trump’s midterm defeat”.
The authors stress that limits imposed by Congress on domestic policy could, on the contrary, prompt the president to make more active use of his powers in international affairs. Foreign policy remains an area in which the U.S. president has wide scope to act independently. Trump’s weakening on the domestic front therefore does not necessarily mean fewer risks for U.S. allies.
According to Le Monde, Europe could face new crises over Iran, Russia’s war against Ukraine, Washington’s relations with Moscow and Latin American countries, as well as international justice and multilateral institutions. Europeans are particularly concerned about the possibility that the U.S. position could move closer to Russia’s views on the war in Ukraine. The editorial board believes Trump is unlikely to change his approach of putting U.S. national interests ahead of those of its allies.
Trade policy remains another serious source of tension. Even if a Democratic-controlled Congress can partly restrain the sharpest conflicts—particularly in relations with Canada—a fundamental change in the White House’s course should not be expected. The aggressive use of tariffs, pressure on trade partners, and willingness to act unilaterally may all persist regardless of the midterm results.
The editorial’s main conclusion is that Europe should not count on a return to the old model of American leadership, based on reliable security guarantees and close coordination with allies. Europeans, the authors write, “can only count on themselves.” In these circumstances, EU unity is not merely desirable but essential if Europe is to pursue an independent policy on defense, diplomacy, and the economy.
The article offers a European editorial perspective, not a South African reaction: it includes no views from South African politicians, experts, or economists. However, the weakening of the multilateral order described in the article could also have indirect effects on countries in the Global South. Unilateral U.S. trade policy, conflicts over international institutions, and instability linked to wars can affect global prices, logistics chains, market access, and the standing of international law.
Still, this is not a South African position presented in the article, but a possible consequence of Le Monde’s argument. The editorial does not offer a neutral list of scenarios; it makes a political appeal: Trump’s defeat in the midterms is not enough to justify European optimism, and the EU must prepare for an era of greater strategic independence.
