By Imran Khalid
Imran Khalid
As Australia's most critical military ally in the Asia-Pacific, the United States' role looms large in shaping Australian defense policy, particularly when considering the implications of Donald Trump's return to the White House on Jan. 20. In view of Trump’s trademark foreign policy disgorgement over key global issues, there are growing concerns within the Australian government, reflected by senior officials, that Trump may rethink or even dismantle this strategic alliance.
The early reactions from key Australian officials reveal underlying concerns. Foreign Minister Penny Wong, reflecting on Trump’s second term, emphasized, "We look forward to particularly prioritizing AUKUS in our engagement with the Trump administration." AUKUS is the trilateral security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Wong has been projecting AUKUS as a top priority in engaging with the next U.S. administration. She expressed a focus on AUKUS, describing it as the primary issue on Australia's radar, highlighting its swift evolution as a linchpin in the bilateral relationship. A mere three years ago, AUKUS was labeled as a relatively new venture with limited scope, but today, it has become the top priority in discussions with the U.S. government.
For Canberra, it has swiftly eclipsed other major defense initiatives, as well as economic concerns. In this new political landscape, Australian leaders are understandably wary of how a Trump administration might approach their carefully crafted strategic ties. Will AUKUS remain a pillar of their security framework, or could it be redefined under a different American leadership?
There is little doubt that the Australian government is now inordinately depending upon AUKUS as the most important plank of its defense strategy. However, there is growing concern within Australian leadership about the future of this agreement under Trump.
The fear is not unfounded. Trump's foreign policy track record has consistently shown a desire to renegotiate agreements with allies he perceives as not pulling their weight. Throughout his first term, Trump criticized nations such as Korea, Japan and NATO members for not bearing their fair share of defense costs, urging them to increase their contributions, particularly for the U.S. military presence on their soil.
These patterns suggest that Trump’s approach to the AUKUS deal might mirror his stance on other defense partnerships — pressuring Australia for additional financial commitments. Experts speculate that Australia could be asked to expand its investment beyond the existing 2.4 billion pounds (4.6 billion Australian dollars) for the U.K. and U.S. defense sectors, as well as the $3 billion (AU$4.6 billion) already committed to the defense industrial bases. This shift would mark a significant test of the strategic relationship, raising fundamental questions about the nature of shared defense costs and long-term cooperation under a Trump administration.
The AUKUS agreement, as it stands, will remain at the mercy of the political tides, with little to prevent any of its signatories — including Australia — from exiting or altering its terms. Despite the formalization of the pact in a draft trilateral treaty, presented in August to Australia’s Parliament, the deal has yet to fully solidify. This treaty outlines a crucial legal framework for the sharing of U.S. and U.K. naval nuclear propulsion technology with Australia, positioning it as a foundational piece of the defense partnership. It is noteworthy that this treaty was not just confined to Australia; it was also laid before the U.K. Parliament in September and transmitted to the U.S. Congress in August. Once passed by all three legislatures, it would extend its validity through Dec. 31, 2075 — unless terminated earlier.
Yet, this formal milestone carries with it an undeniable vulnerability. Should Trump, or any future U.S. leader, decide to disrupt the accord, little legal recourse exists for the Australian government. As with many international security treaties, the terms allow for a withdrawal with just 12 months' notice, exposing the fragility of such agreements. Ultimately, the future of AUKUS hinges not on legal frameworks but on the political will of the leaders involved — a far more volatile and unpredictable force than any treaty's provisions.
While the political future of AUKUS under a Trump administration remains uncertain, there is still strong bipartisan support for the agreement in the U.S. Congress. Interestingly, in December 2023, crucial AUKUS legislation garnered impressive backing, including an 80 percent yes vote in an evenly divided Senate and a 75 percent yes vote in a Republican-dominated House. But the situation has seriously changed since the last vote on this agreement.
At present, given the deeply polarized state of American politics, securing that approval appears far from assured. At the same time, the unpredictable nature of Trump’s foreign policy makes it clear that AUKUS’ future will hinge not just on its legislative backing but also on the shifting priorities of an unpredictable political leadership in Washington. Trump’s foreign policy team is taking shape gradually, with notable figures like Marco Rubio nominated for secretary of state, and Mike Waltz set to be national security adviser. Both have long been vocal about their hawkish stance toward China, signaling a shift toward a more Indo-Pacific-focused approach. In this framework, Australia would likely find itself occupying a pivotal role, alongside other U.S. allies in the region. Yet, the question remains: Is this role truly in Australia’s best interest?
Though it's understandable to be concerned about AUKUS’ future, early signs suggest that U.S. disengagement is unlikely. In fact, the more pressing concern could be the entrapment of Australia and its allies in a conflict should tensions escalate. With U.S. policy veering toward a more aggressive stance in the region, the risk of abandonment seems less immediate than the challenge of being caught up in a larger geopolitical crisis. The future of the AUKUS partnership, particularly as it pertains to the next five, 10 or 20 years, remains uncertain. Most of the discourse surrounding Trump has centered on Pillar 1 — the submarine component — while the broader, more transformative developments under Pillar 2 have received less attention.
The key question for Australia is how much flexibility it can tolerate before the financial and strategic costs of involvement become prohibitive. This conundrum will persist well beyond Trump’s tenure, as it taps into the broader challenge of maintaining long-term alliances in an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.
Dr. Imran Khalid ([email protected]) is a freelance contributor based in Karachi, Pakistan.
English (United States) ·