Australia can’t expect ‘business as usual’ with Trump 2.0. So what’s the plan?

Anthony Albanese brands himself as a calm, methodical, statesmanlike leader. Indeed, that’s exactly how he characterised his dealings with Donald Trump in the hours after their February 10 phone call.

“We’ve been working calmly and methodically and diplomatically, as we do, with nations to defend Australia’s interest and to advance Australia’s interests,” the prime minister said.

Illustration by Simon LetchCredit:

It seemed to work. Trump agreed to consider an exemption for Australia on steel and aluminium tariffs, and permitted Albanese to say that publicly.

Since then, of course, things have gone south. Trump didn’t grant anyone an exemption; in fact, he hiked the tariffs to 50 per cent. His Department of Defence initiated a review of the AUKUS pact, headed by an AUKUS sceptic, and he bailed on a meeting with Albanese at the G7 to deal with the Middle East.

To be fair, Trump has repeatedly called Albanese a nice guy: an important hurdle to clear with a president for whom personal relationships are pivotal. It may yet turn out to be what saves AUKUS. The day the Pentagon review lands on Trump’s desk, Albanese will want him to be thinking: “Oh, yeah, that nice fellow from Down Under.”

But things are moving quickly and unpredictably in Washington. There is a sense that – at least in defence and foreign affairs – some of the chaos and disorder of Trump’s first term has returned.

“He is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration”: Elbridge Colby, Trump’s under-secretary of defence, is making waves in Washington.Credit: Bloomberg

Mike Waltz, creator of the infamous Signal group chat, was binned as national security adviser on May 1. Trump then installed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as interim adviser, and began to gut and restructure the National Security Council (NSC). The aim was to slash bureaucratic fat: Rubio told Axios he was “right-sizing” the outfit in line with Trump’s vision.

Whether by accident or design, we are now seeing the outcome. Important decisions are being made unilaterally, with key partners caught off guard. That appears to be the case for at least two recent matters: the Pentagon’s AUKUS probe, and a pause in the supply of defensive weaponry to Ukraine.

As this masthead reported on Thursday, the State Department was blindsided by the AUKUS review. When the review became public, the department told its embassies to tell reporters: “We are not aware of a review of the AUKUS agreement.” Such matters would normally go through robust NSC procedures, sources say.

Uncertainty also surrounds last week’s Pentagon decision to freeze the supply of some munitions to Ukraine. Trump later reversed course, noting Ukraine was being pummelled by Russia and needed the weapons. Asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins who had ordered the pause, Trump said: “I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?”

US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the G7 in June. Britain is one of the few countries to negotiate the framework of a tariff deal during Trump’s second term.Credit: AP

The next day, The New York Times’ Shawn McCreesh asked Trump whether he managed to find out. “I haven’t thought about it,” the president said. McCreesh then asked what it said about the administration if the commander-in-chief was unaware of such an important decision. “I would know,” Trump insisted. “If a decision was made, I will know. I’ll be the first to know. In fact, most likely I’d give the order, but I haven’t done that yet.” Make of that what you will.

Driving the Ukraine decision, and leading the AUKUS review, was Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. A former defence strategist from Trump’s first term, Colby is known as a strong intellect, a fierce China hawk and a sceptic when it comes to sending American military hardware elsewhere, whether that be Australia or Ukraine.

In August last year, while outside government, Colby told this masthead’s Peter Hartcher he considered himself “an AUKUS agnostic”. So far, he said, “I have not seen the weight of compelling evidence”. He was more positive about the pact by the time his confirmation hearing rolled around in March.

This week, in light of the Ukraine flip-flop, Colby’s role has come under the microscope. A widely read piece in Washington favourite Politico – which some Beltway folks interpreted as a “hatchet job” on Colby – quoted an unnamed source saying: “He is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration.”

The piece prompted the director of defence and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute think tank, Justin Logan, to pen a rebuttal painting Colby as the victim of an unfair attack in the Washington policy wars. “He has been a thoughtful and loyal defender of the best parts of the America First foreign policy agenda, which explains why he has taken so much flak from those who cling to the status quo,” Logan wrote.

Did Colby go rogue, or was he just doing what he is there to do? Stephen Tankel, a staff member of the National Security Council until January 2025 who was responsible for defence industry, says it’s difficult to know because the normal processes that guide these decisions don’t apply under the Trump administration.

“That creates opportunities for policy entrepreneurs, but it also creates dangers because if the process is nebulous, then a leader can think they are doing what they’re supposed to do but end up somehow out of bounds,” says Tankel.

Sophia Gaston, a senior research fellow at King’s College London and a foreign affairs analyst with deep knowledge of AUKUS, argues the sense of chaos and disorder is a feature, not a bug.

“The foreign policy framework in Washington is less defined than normal at the moment, in part because decisions are seemingly being taken by individuals on an ad hoc basis,” she says. “It can be hard to know where the Trump administration will land on any particular issue, and that is partly by design. Trump was seeking to create a government of strategic ambiguity.”

On the other side of the world at the ASEAN summit in Malaysia, Rubio poured cold water on any accusation of chaos or abnormality. The freeze on weapons for Ukraine was “mischaracterised”, he said. “It was a very limited review of certain types of munitions to ensure that we had sufficient stockpiles.”

As for the AUKUS review, Rubio said it was natural for a new administration to cast its eye over such a project. “Just because you’re reviewing something doesn’t mean you’re going to necessarily act on it,” he said. “Our policies on AUKUS have not changed.”

The crucial part for Australia is that Trump decided the supply of weapons had to continue. It suggests that even if the Pentagon is predisposed to a certain position, this president is willing to overrule. Many of those sweating on the AUKUS review point to the Ukraine decision as cause for optimism.

Where there’s uncertainty, there’s opportunity. That is something Trump understands intuitively. He wields it ruthlessly, including against allies. But it cuts both ways. There is uncertainty about who is calling the shots in Washington and what, if any, processes are in place underneath.

Against this backdrop of chaos, with regular channels relegated to the back seat, what should Australia do? The experts are of one mind: business as usual won’t cut it.

“This is a very different administration than those that have preceded it, including the first Trump administration,” says Charles Edel, Australia chair at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Engaging with, and influencing, the Trump administration means throwing out the old playbook and conducting diplomacy differently.”

Edel argues Albanese’s political success at home makes him “well situated to engage with Trump directly in a discussion of how to move alliance equities forward”. In other words: Albanese has a mandate. Use it.

Tankel says Australia needs to spend even more time than usual on political intelligence: figuring out who is in favour, who’s not, and “which power centres are staking out which positions”.

London-based Sophia Gaston urges Australia to study the success of Britain, one of the few countries to negotiate the framework of a tariff deal with Trump 2.0.

“Governments might think they just need to ‘tell their stories’ better in Washington, but they will quickly find that this is a completely different regime that requires a distinct tactical approach,” she says. “It’s not about which political party you’re from. We have a Labour government in power in London, but they were prepared to be ruthless on a political level. The relationship with the US is the No.1 prism through which every decision is made.

“We knew that we had to demonstrate our value, and our politicians have been extremely careful about public diplomacy. The government never took the battle over tariffs to the British people; they just quietly got on with doing the work behind the scenes.

“Australia and other allies have to understand that they need to win the war politically and build that goodwill on a leader-to-leader level first, and that is the price of entry to the policy collaboration.”

In other words: less methodical, more mongrel.

Michael Koziol is the North America correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.