ABC News · Juni 2026

• Uses distancing and critical verbs like 'slams', 'criticises', 'hits back' in relation to Trump's actions
• Frames Trump's statements as claims or threats rather than authoritative policy
• Highlights controversies, gaffes, and negative reactions from other leaders
• Mixes factual reporting with editorial commentary on Trump's impact

The entity is the US, but coverage focuses overwhelmingly on Trump as its representative. The outlet's stance toward the US as a country is largely mediated through Trump, with critical framing of his actions and statements. Some headlines are neutral or positive (e.g., SpaceX success, ceasefire), but the overall selection skews toward skepticism of US leadership under Trump. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language toward the US itself, but treats Trump's credibility negatively.

• Frames Trump as outmaneuvered or ineffective (e.g., 'outsmarting Trump', 'reality on the ground is very different')
• Highlights criticism and pushback from other leaders (e.g., Meloni, Albanese)
• Uses distancing or negative framing in headlines about Trump's actions and claims
• Foregrounds domestic and international opposition to Trump's policies

Some headlines neutrally report Trump's statements or actions (e.g., 4, 6, 8), and a few could be seen as amplifying his role as dealmaker (e.g., 23, 24). However, the overall selection emphasizes criticism, setbacks, and opposition, suggesting a skeptical stance toward Trump rather than outright hostility.

• Balanced reporting on domestic political figures and events
• Occasional critical framing of government decisions (e.g., defence land sale, tax decision)
• Neutral coverage of international and business news
• Some headlines highlight controversies involving politicians and entities

The entity is 'AU' (Australia), but the headlines focus on various domestic actors and issues rather than a single coherent stance toward the country itself. Coverage is largely factual with some critical angles on specific policies and politicians, but no consistent positive or negative framing of Australia as a whole. The bundle is heterogeneous, making stance assessment low confidence.

• Foregrounds leadership crises and resignations
• Uses neutral verbs but highlights failures and scandals
• Frames entity as embattled and under pressure
• Occasional evaluative language ('grossly negligent', 'stunning')

Stance is toward the UK government/PM as an entity, not toward the country as a whole. Coverage is largely factual but selects negative events (resignations, scandals, protests), implying a critical stance. Some headlines are neutral reports of actions by UK institutions, and the entity's own statements are quoted without overt hostility, so the score is -1 rather than -2.