Trump has sent a wrecking ball through old alliances. The implications for Australia are severe

The opening weeks of the second Trump administration have shattered any lingering delusions about the challenge for Australia in a more dangerous world. Every morning brings another shock from Donald Trump as he sends a wrecking ball through old alliances – berating friends, warming to foes and ruthlessly pursuing his policy of putting America first.

The glow of Australia’s alliance with the US fades by the day. If the United States president can turn his back on the NATO alliance with Europe and Canada – the foundation of Western security for seven decades – he is also capable of spurning the ANZUS security agreement and the AUKUS pact on nuclear-propelled submarines.

There is no comfort in stale concepts of mateship and shared values when the White House is occupied by a transactional president who drops allies. On Friday, Trump seemed to be unaware of AUKUS. “What does that mean?” he asked a British reporter who mentioned the pact.

Trump has signalled to Russia President Vladimir Putin that he wants him back in the G8 club of global powers. He will only help Ukraine if it hands over critical minerals. He froze European leaders out of a summit with Russia last weekend. His vice president, J.D. Vance, lectured Europe on free speech in a Valentine’s Day address in Munich that played down the threats from Russia and China.

The implications are severe. This America is not our friend. It is a geopolitical business partner, on our side unless or until it finds a better deal.

Friedrich Merz, the likely chancellor of Germany after that country’s elections last weekend, says America is now “indifferent” to Europe.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” he said after his victory. One step for Germany is to rely on France, not the US, for a nuclear deterrent – an astonishing shift.

Sir Alex Younger, who led Britain’s MI6 spy service from 2014 to 2020, says this is the end of the “unipolar moment” when the US had sole power to shape the rules-based order. “We are in a new era where, by and large, international relations are not going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions,” he told the BBC last week. “They’re going to be determined by strong men and deals.”

Who will do these deals? Chinese President Xi Jinping is watching Trump and Putin negotiate over Ukraine – and then he will decide what he wants for Taiwan. The Chinese Navy, meanwhile, conducts live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea and forces 49 commercial flights to change their course, proving it can operate near Australia with impunity.

How should Australia adjust?

This upheaval has barely troubled the Australian election debate. The American alliance is an article of faith for both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Both insist the AUKUS deal will deliver security for Australians when the first submarines arrive in the early 2040s.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with then-US president Joe Biden in San Diego in March 2023 for the joint AUKUS announcement.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

This is gaslighting, says former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, because it tells Australians they have security when they do not. “We need to have a very frank discussion – an honest discussion – about how to defend Australia in circumstances where we cannot reflexively rely on the United States,” he says. “Frankly, everything that comes out of Washington is telling us we have to do that.”

Another former prime minister, Tony Abbott, also says Australia will have to adjust – but has a very different take on what that means. “The US alliance remains the bedrock of our security, but it will be a different alliance under Trump than previously,” he says. “We will be expected to ‘walk the walk’ not just ‘talk the talk’, and that means pulling our weight in the wider defence of the West. If the US chooses to be involved in the defence of Taiwan, we will be expected to help, and not just with token forces.”

Should Australia keep following America into war when Trump is the commander-in-chief? Not according to retired admiral Chris Barrie, a former chief of the Australian Defence Force. “I think we need to be recalibrating our defence posture and our defence thinking to take account of a much more independent Australia from American leadership,” he told ABC Radio National on Thursday.

Former foreign minister Bob Carr says the lesson is to adopt a more independent foreign policy. He does not suggest abandoning ANZUS. “We need a broader, more confident and more creative diplomacy,” he says. “Gone are the days when we simply deferred to the US position or obsequiously ran any diplomatic stance past Washington. The idea that we’re important because we’re close to Washington was an illusion, anyway.”

There is no consensus on how Australia should respond because there is no agreement on how Trump will act – or how America will change after him.

Is Australia in a better position than Europe?

Trump has shocked European leaders with his retreat from the Atlantic alliance, but many concede that NATO members were “free riders” on American defence spending. Former treasurer Joe Hockey, the ambassador to Washington from 2016 to 2020, says Australia is different for two reasons.

“One is because we have been doing the heavy lifting,” he says. “As unpopular as the Iraq war was, that illustrated to the Americans that we are loyal partners. We are the only country since World War I that has been side by side with the Americans in every single conflict – the Americans are aware of that. And they know, through AUKUS, we are laying down the money and doing our bit, above and beyond expectations.

“The second point is that America is pivoting to the threat from China. They understand that the biggest economic and military threat is China, and they’re finding it challenging as a nation to fund everyone else’s problem-solving when the biggest challenge they face requires a hell of a lot of resources and a hell of a lot of focus.”

This is an enormous gamble because everything turns on predictions about Trump. If he deserts Ukraine to pursue a deal with Putin, will he retreat on Taiwan and seek a settlement with Xi?

Australia has to do business with a towering ego – a “bombastic narcissist” according to his former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, and a “deeply wounded narcissist” according to his former lawyer, Ty Cobb. It is naive to think there is a grand strategy behind Trump’s dealmaking.

George Brandis, a former cabinet minister and Australian high commissioner in London who is now a professor at the National Security College at the Australian National University, says Australia faces different challenges to Europe.

He points to a speech in Brussels two weeks ago by Trump’s new secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, who said the US was putting a priority on deterring war with China. Brandis, who represented Australia at Five Eyes security meetings during his time as attorney-general, says Australia’s defence spending can also work in its favour in Washington.

“You can forget the idea that Trump will act out of any sense of loyalty or principle of upholding democratic alliances or out of any sense of obligation arising from the fact of there being a treaty,” he says. “He will act in a ruthlessly self-interested and pragmatic way. But applying that to Australia’s particular situation, I think we are in a much better position than Europe.”

Will Trump trade away Taiwan?

The US Congress may be a check on Trump if he is played by Xi in the same way he has fallen under Putin’s spell. While Congress has allowed Trump free rein so far, confirming all his key appointments, this may not extend to his policy in Asia, given that senior Republicans and Democrats want an assertive policy against a strategic competitor.

Arthur Sinodinos, the former cabinet secretary and industry minister who succeeded Hockey as ambassador in Washington, says Trump was never as hawkish about China as some of his advisers, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

“There’s a school of thought that says Trump might be prepared to do a grand bargain on trade with China in return, potentially, for security assurances that they might ask for on the South China Sea or Taiwan,” says Sinodinos.

“The challenge for the president is that there’s a strong, hawkish wing of the Republican Party that would not like a deal like that. Some of them actually believe that the US should be recognising Taiwan [statehood] rather than trading it away. So, there is some complexity here. There will be some in the administration arguing that they don’t want a trade deal at any cost.”

Hockey offers a similar view. He points to the positions taken by senior Republicans and Democrats as key factors for Australia. “Even if Donald Trump is agnostic about the defence of Taiwan, the Congress, which is an equal power source in the US, will have very definite views about China,” he says.

Australian defences are weak

Even so, Australia is more vulnerable at the very point when America is less predictable. The country is badly exposed after almost two decades of domestic instability: we have had six prime ministers and four leadership spills since 2007, installing a series of one-term governments. Commonwealth debt is forecast to surpass $1 trillion next year, and the budget will fall back into deficit.

The nation’s submarine fleet, the Collins class, was built over two decades from 1990. The first vessel put to sea in 1996. When the time came to replace the fleet, three Coalition governments pursued three different submarine designs over nine years: the Japanese, the French and the nuclear-propelled AUKUS plan with the US and UK. If the French deal had delivered on time, the first of 12 vessels would have arrived in the early 2030s.

Scott Morrison at a virtual joint press conference in September 2021 unveiling AUKUS with then-UK and US leaders Boris Johnson and Joe Biden.Credit: AAP

The indecision and delay have left Australia with a shocking capability gap.

China has just highlighted the vulnerability by sending three warships down the east coast of Australia and into the Great Australian Bight. The Royal Australian Navy dispatched a frigate to shadow the Chinese task group. Jennifer Parker, a former Royal Australian Navy officer, says there is an urgent need for a stronger navy.

“We have less ships at sea this year than we did last year, and we had less ships at sea last year than we did the year before,” says Parker, who is now an adjunct fellow at the University of New South Wales and an expert fellow at the Australian National University’s National Security College. The country only has 10 surface combatants – frigates and destroyers – in today’s fleet. This is the lowest since the 1950s.

“We need to start investing, and we need to make rapid decisions,” says Parker. This is not just about the AUKUS submarines. The government’s stated plan is to acquire more vessels, so we have up to 20 frigates and destroyers, but the fleet will actually shrink next year (due to decommissioning an older ship) and will not be any bigger until early next decade.

How did this happen? A decision was made to replace the frigates in 2009, but it took until 2018 for the new design to be chosen. “Nine years to make a decision was unacceptable,” says Parker. The first construction of the new frigates began in 2024. “Six years to get to the point of laying steel is also unacceptable,” she says. Others might call it scandalous.

AUKUS is in doubt

The great hope for Australian security and the great test of the American alliance is now subject to the whims of the White House.

Australia assumes it will be able to buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-propelled submarines from the US during the 2030s to fill the capability gap while building the next-generation AUKUS submarines with the UK for delivery in the 2040s. But the sale of the Virginias is subject to Trump’s approval. Australia also needs US agreement to transfer the nuclear technology for the later submarines.

“I’d feel a damn sight more secure if we were ready to take possession of those lethal but affordable French subs,” says Bob Carr. He believes the nuclear-propelled submarines will never arrive.

“I think the Americans will have an AUKUS Plan B,” says Carr. “And it’s a frightful one: ‘We can’t do what we promised, but we will place our Virginia-class boats in your ports’ – so Fremantle becomes a Western Australian Pearl Harbour. There might be pressure on us to offer up an east coast base, like Port Kembla.”

This is the scenario in which Australia loses sovereignty. It is the outcome former prime minister Paul Keating predicted soon after AUKUS was unveiled.

Turnbull, another AUKUS critic, says Trump or his successor may cite US law to stop the transfer of the Virginia vessels. The law states the president can only approve the transfer if it “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities” and if the US has ensured “sufficient submarine production” at home. This is in subchapter III of the AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorisation Act.

“There’s got to be an honest assessment of what we do in the scenario where we don’t get any Virginia-class submarines, and potentially no British ones either,” says Turnbull.

Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, a former submarine commander who led two fleet bases and the RAN’s submarine capability team, says the US is falling behind in building submarines and will, therefore, struggle to sell any to Australia. The Congressional Budget Office says the US needs to complete two each year to replenish the fleet and meet the AUKUS requirements – a target that is not being met.

Briggs comes to a dire conclusion: Australia should admit its mistake with AUKUS, go back to the French, and choose the nuclear-propelled Suffren design from Naval Group.

Is there a case for AUKUS at all?

The central problem with AUKUS is that it magnifies the Australian reliance on America when America is less reliable. This is a truth that no cabinet minister or shadow minister can admit. Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles expresses full confidence in the project. So does Dutton, who was defence minister when it was announced.

Hegseth was jokily transactional when Marles flew to Washington earlier this month and announced the first Australian payment of $US500 million ($790 million) to the US under the AUKUS pact.

Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (right), met Defence Minister Richard Marles (left) earlier this month.Credit: AP

“The cheque did clear,” the defence secretary quipped. This is the first instalment of a total $US3 billion to support US industry, ahead of any submarine purchases. Importantly, however, Hegseth said Trump supported AUKUS.

“This is not a mission in the Indo-Pacific that America can undertake by itself,” Hegseth said. “It has to be robust. Allies and partners, technology sharing and subs are a huge part of it.” This may be a sign that Trump will stand by the deal.

The argument for AUKUS is that America will not risk losing it. Sinodinos, for instance, says AUKUS means Australia’s defence posture becomes essential to US security in the Indo-Pacific. “From now on, our mantra should be not so much that we need them, but that they need us,” he says. In this view, it means investing more in the US alliance, not less, as well as doing more in the region with countries such as Japan and South Korea.

“We’re likely to get the Virginias on schedule,” says Hockey, flatly countering critics like Carr and Turnbull. “That’s because America is focusing more on the Indo-Pacific than on other battles. If the massive industrial-military complex of the United States is focusing on the Indo-Pacific, it’s to our great advantage, and it makes the schedule for delivering the Virginias more likely.”

Hockey also rejects the idea the US will send its submarines to new bases in Australia rather than letting Australia control its own fleet. “Australia has a history of demanding to be an equal party in these sorts of partnerships,” he says. “And when we are an equal party, we are known by the Americans to deliver, and therefore they trust us.”

Is defence spending too low?

Australia had two defence ministers from 1984 to 1996 – Kim Beazley and Robert Ray – but 15 of them since then. Most have lasted less than two years. Spending on defence will grow to $53 billion in the year to June 2026, but many voters also want generous spending on social services. This places incredible pressure on the budget in a new era when Australia cannot rely on an American security umbrella.

Spending on defence is slightly above 2 per cent of GDP after falling to record lows in recent years. Defence Minister Marles says it is on track to reach 2.4 per cent in the coming years. Coalition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie says the arrival of Chinese ships in recent weeks is a reminder of the need to spend more on the military.

Other American allies are facing the same questions. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised to lift UK spending on defence to 2.5 per cent of GDP, funded by cuts to foreign aid, on the eve of his visit to see Trump at the White House on Thursday.

The long wait for AUKUS obscures key questions about what else Australia needs. The government is buying more missiles, but the $4.1 billion guided weapons project will take until 2027 to manufacture missiles with Norwegian company Kongsberg at an Australian factory.

What about more drones or long-range aircraft? The country may need all of them. “There is no silver bullet solution,” says Parker, the naval warfare expert.

Justin Bassi, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the US will require more from its allies. “We have to continue showing that we are investing in our own security to ensure that the US knows that maintaining their investment in our collective security is in its interests,” he says.

Hockey says our defence spending has to get to 3 per cent of GDP. “And in a hurry,” he adds. Turnbull, however, poses a question: why on earth did the previous government commit $3.5 billion to Abrams tanks in early 2022, just before the last election? Land warfare is not the priority.

“We talk a lot about increasing our expenditure on defence, and I believe we’ll need to, but we don’t seem to focus enough about what on, what we’re actually getting for the dollar,” he says.

A target of 3 per cent is immensely ambitious when Australians expect more spending on pensions, hospitals, disability care and schools. Achieving 2.4 per cent, for instance, requires spending $100 billion a year on defence by 2034. That would be as much as the country spends on the Age Pension in that year. The National Disability Insurance Scheme would be about the same, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Will any political leader want to tell Australians to tighten their belts so we can buy more weapons?

An election debate worth having

“The news at the moment is dominated by the disruptive actions of Donald Trump and the way in which he is upending American foreign policy,” says Turnbull.

Donald Trump has taken a jackhammer to global alliances.Credit: Matt Davidson

“But we see nowhere in the election debate any attention to what that means for Australia. Both Labor and the Liberal Party are in lockstep in claiming that nothing has changed – that everything’s going to be the same. And we know it isn’t.”

Australia is about to enter a formal election campaign that can be rocked at any moment by a new shock from Trump. One early test is due to be decided within two weeks: will Australia gain an exemption from the president’s 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium? It seems unlikely. The cost multiplies if Trump drives the world into a trade war.

America has changed. Australia cannot assume the second Trump administration is a four-year blip. Trump’s catch-cry – “Make America Great Again” – has captured voters who want a new direction for their country, which means the MAGA movement can last more than one presidency. The America First doctrine looks like isolationism one day and foreign dealmaking the next.

Australians were told to believe in the American alliance, but the past five weeks have told them they cannot take that alliance to the bank. Australia stands instead at the doorway of the Trump Casino.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.