Trump’s team reviewed accidental disclosure of airstrike plans to journalist via Signal thread, sparking criticism and demands for investigation.

In Short

The Trump administration is investigating how Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was mistakenly added to a group chat about U.S. airstrike plans in Yemen. The incident has drawn widespread criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for mishandling classified information and raised serious national security concerns.

The Trump administration is currently reviewing how Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat discussing U.S. airstrike plans against Houthi militants in Yemen.

The National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the message thread and announced an investigation into how Goldberg’s number was included. Goldberg initially expressed skepticism about the texts and considered the possibility of disinformation campaigns.

He received messages from high-ranking officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, later sharing some exchanges and screenshots in his article.

Left the group

Goldberg noted that he left the group after concluding the conversation was genuine. Within the discussion, a user identified as “JD Vance” raised concerns about the airstrike plans and their broader implications.

Following the article’s publication, Democratic lawmakers condemned the incident, calling it a serious national security breach. Criticism extended to the transmission of classified information through unsecured channels, with demands for investigations.

Even some Republicans criticized the administration’s handling of classified information. Amidst this, Trump stated he was unaware of the situation when questioned. The unfolding events highlight significant concerns about national security practices within the administration.

Democrats have likened the incident to amateurish behaviour, suggesting the need for tighter safeguards in handling sensitive information moving forward.

Heathrow Airport should have stayed operational post-fire, but faced extensive disruptions and criticism over crisis management and power dependency.

In Short

Heathrow Airport could have stayed open despite a nearby electrical substation fire that caused 1,300 flight cancellations. Both Heathrow and the UK government have launched investigations, while airline stocks fell due to concerns over financial impacts.

Heathrow Airport may have remained open on Friday despite a fire at a nearby electrical substation, according to Britain’s National Grid.

The London airport had previously closed due to the fire affecting its power supply. National Grid’s CEO, John Pettigrew, stated that although one substation was damaged, two others provided sufficient power to ensure operations could continue.

Heathrow officials, however, argued that a safe restart of operations was not feasible after such a major disruption. They emphasised the complexity of the airport’s systems, which required careful management during the downtime.

Alternative options

Heathrow’s CEO, Thomas Woldbye, highlighted that while alternative substations existed, switching them on was time-consuming. He pointed out that the fire occurred outside of Heathrow’s control and required significant response efforts from the airport.

An internal investigation has been initiated by Heathrow, with the UK government also planning a separate inquiry into the incident. The disruption caused around 1,300 flight cancellations or diversions, leading to substantial financial implications for airlines.

In the aftermath, airline stocks faced a decline in value, reflecting investor concerns about the incident’s impact on travel and revenue. The International Air Transport Association criticized Heathrow’s emergency response, questioning the airport’s reliance on a single power source.

Trump’s trade war could raise Australian medicine costs and limit availability, complicating PBS negotiations and tariff impacts.

In Short

Concerns arise in Australia over a US-Australia trade dispute affecting medicine costs and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Potential US tariffs could raise drug prices and impact access, despite the US arguing for higher prices to reflect drug development costs.

Talks of a trade dispute between the US and Australia regarding medicine costs have raised concerns among Australians.

The potential impact on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and tariffs on Australian drugs entering the US raises questions about drug prices and availability.

The PBS offers subsidised medicines, maintaining low out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Drug companies must submit evidence to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which assesses the cost-effectiveness of drugs.

Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs could prompt a rise in medicine prices or lead to shortages. Price negotiations occur between the government and drug companies, with consumers paying a fixed co-payment regardless of the drug’s cost to the government.

The US argues the PBS undervalues innovative drugs, seeking higher prices that reflect development costs. However, the PBAC aims to keep prices low, benefiting consumers.

Tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals exported to the US could hike prices and reduce demand for Australian-made drugs, although most medicines in Australia are sourced overseas.

Even if Australia retaliated with tariffs on US pharmaceuticals, it would likely harm access to innovative drugs and lead to increased negotiation restrictions.

While the trade negotiations’ outcome remains uncertain, it is unlikely the US can significantly influence Australian pharmaceutical pricing, especially with anticipated reductions in consumer drug costs.