We didn’t set out to run one of the biggest grassroots campaigns the Gold Coast has seen in years. But the moment the Trump Organization’s first Australian tower was announced – a 91-storey, 340-metre Trump International Hotel & Tower proposed for Surfers Paradise – we knew we had to act. So we did what ordinary people always do when the powerful move in: we organised.
Between our two Change.org petitions – mine, and the one started by CK – we’ve now pushed beyond 1,13,525 verified signatures, a clear public signal that this project is not a “done deal” in the hearts of Australians.
CK has chosen to remain anonymous, not out of drama or mystery, but out of a real fear of backlash and retaliation from the most aggressive elements of Trump fandom – the sort of intimidation that has become an ugly, familiar soundtrack to Trump-era politics.
When we say “we”, we mean something bigger than two names on a webpage – Craig Hill and CK. We mean the teachers, tradies, hospitality workers, students, parents, small business owners, long-term locals, and visitors who love the Gold Coast for what it is: sun, sand, openness, and a culture that still feels fundamentally Australian.
What’s being proposed and why it matters
The tower is being pitched as a luxury monument: a “six-star resort-hotel”, high-end apartments, retail, a beach club, and a level of branding that’s meant to scream prestige. The Trump Organization says this will be a landmark address and a new flag planted on an iconic beachfront.
But the key detail is this: it’s a hotel management and brand-licensing deal, meaning the Trump Organization profits from the name, the marketing, and the “halo” of association – even if the concrete is poured by others. That’s exactly why we’re fighting it. Because branding is not neutral. Branding is power. The Trump Organization will manage the complex, and profit most from it.
Our central objection: the Trump brand and a global pattern of harm
Our primary objection isn’t the height, the glass, or the architecture. It’s the name, thogh similar projexcts throughout the world have had negative impacts. These are in terms of the displacement of local businesses, skyrocketing property prices, and a sharp increase in income inequality. This is not the future we wish for our beloved Gold Coast.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon, found guilty on 34 felony counts in New York. He has also been found liable for sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll civil case, and a judge later clarified that what the jury found amounted to rape in the common understanding of the word, even if New York’s narrow legal definition wasn’t met by the jury’s specific finding.
And then there’s the business record – the part that should matter even to people who don’t care about politics. Multiple independent fact-checks and financial reporting describe six Trump-linked corporate bankruptcies (mostly in casinos/hospitality), a pattern of over-leverage, aggressive deal-making, and leaving others to hold the bag.
We laid out the deeper pattern in our own research: ten places around the world where Trump-owned or Trump-branded developments were reported as drivers or symbols of luxury-led upheaval, with communities describing displacement pressures, price escalation, and inequality. That list includes projects and controversies in New York, Atlantic City, Vancouver, Toronto, Pune, Gurgaon, Panama City, Scotland, and Ireland.
This is why “it’s just a building” doesn’t cut it. It’s not just a building. It’s a brand with a track record, and reputational baggage that Australia does not need to import.
Australia has a right to ask: why reward hostility?
The timing makes this worse. Right now, Australia is dealing with a chaotic and openly hostile US tariff regime. Official Australian government guidance confirms the US has imposed a 10% Temporary Import Surcharge on most goods, and also lists much higher “national security” tariffs – including 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Reporting in recent days has described the push to lift the temporary global rate to 15% – a move that would hit Australian exporters as well.
So we have to ask: if the Trump administration is actively making life harder for Australian exporters and workers, why on earth should the Gold Coast build a glittering shrine to the Trump name?
Mayor Tom Tate has spoken positively about the proposal in media coverage, and council has confirmed that no development application had yet been lodged at the time of reporting. That means there is still time – and still responsibility – to rethink.
The beach cabanas issue: Schoolies Hub is not a hotel annex
One detail has set off alarm bells for locals who actually understand this city: the talk of beach cabanas and a resort experience that “spills out” onto the sand.
Across the road – and right on that stretch of Surfers Paradise beach – sits the Queensland Government’s Schoolies Hub, a fenced, alcohol- and drug-free entertainment precinct where school leavers gather during Schoolies Week.
This matters. Schoolies is already a complex safety operation involving policing, health, volunteers, and careful planning. The idea that a Trump-branded luxury hotel could effectively exert influence over the same beachfront environment – through cabanas, beach club operations, or sheer brand dominance – is not just culturally grotesque. It’s operationally risky.
We do not want Schoolies Week turned into a “VIP backdrop” for wealthy tourists. We do not want a public beach – especially one that functions as a major youth safety precinct – to be treated like a private forecourt.
Serious questions about the developer and delivery risk
We’re also deeply concerned about the delivery risk – not just the politics.
ABC investigative reporting has documented that the project’s local proponent, Altus CEO David Young, previously ran a business that collapsed owing $28 million to creditors, and that a liquidator’s report described him as largely “uncontactable” and failing to file key financial information after the collapse.
The same reporting notes two previous bankruptcies for Young, both completed. That’s not “cancel culture”. That’s due diligence.
We also can’t pretend this tower exists in a vacuum. Surfers Paradise already struggles with peak-season gridlock, limited on-street space, and an event calendar that pushes roads and public transport to their limits.
A 91-storey hotel-and-residential complex would pour thousands more vehicle trips into an area where road capacity, loading zones, rideshare pick-ups, deliveries, and emergency access are already tight – meaning real, day-to-day impacts on locals, workers, and visitors.
If council is even considering this project, we need transparent answers on the full infrastructure bill: which roads and intersections will be upgraded, how pedestrian and disability access will be improved, what additional public transport or active-transport links will be funded, and how construction traffic will be managed for years.
Just as importantly, we need proof that essential services can cope – electricity supply and substation capacity, potable water, sewerage and stormwater, and resilient internet and mobile coverage for a dense high-rise precinct – without quietly shifting costs onto ratepayers and taxpayers or compromising safety and reliability for the existing community.
What we can do about it
We’ve started speaking up the only way that reliably changes outcomes in big developments: through the organisations that represent workers, builders, and industry standards.
We have written to (and are seeking discussions with) the CFMEU, ETU, Plumbers Union, AWU, AMWU, Master Builders Queensland, and the QMCA. Ideally, we could get the project black banned, but we’ll respect whatever alternative actions the unions may implement.
We’ve written to the elected officials whose job it is to represent the public interest in this part of Queensland, including:
- Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate
- Queensland member for Surfers Paradise John-Paul Langbroek (LNP)
- Federal member for Moncrieff Angie Bell (LNP)
- Senator Murray Watt, Labor duty senator for Moncrieff
- Greens leader Senator Larissa Waters (QLD)
We have contacted three former independent federal parliament candidates and Gold Coast activists who have expressed a willingness to help organise this: Stewart Brooker, Michelle Faye and Belinda Jones.
In addition, we have been approached by a Victorian law firm offering to help us raise money from law firms around Australia, and a Brisbane barrister who is helping us to find a local lawyer who may be willing to act pro bono if we can’t raise funds.
We also encourage every concerned citizen to contact the above elected officials – politely. We can be firm without becoming the thing we oppose. We don’t need threats. We don’t need abuse. We need pressure, transparency, and democratic accountability.
A final message to council: think again
We’re not saying the Gold Coast should stop developing. We’re saying the Gold Coast should stop selling its skyline, its beach culture, and its civic identity to a brand that brings division, controversy, and a documented history of hard-edged business dealings.
We’re asking Mayor Tom Tate and Gold Coast Council to have another think about this – and to remember who this city is meant to serve: the community that lives here, works here, and raises families here. And we’re asking them to choose something better than a tower that shouts “TRUMP” over the Pacific.
