Key figures, such as US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and incoming deputy defence secretary Elbridge Colby, have articulated their expectations, prompting significant discussions among Australian officials.
During his confirmation hearings Colby emphasised that Australia should raise its defence spending to 3 per cent of its GDP, in line with NATO standards. Given the escalating challenges posed by countries such as China, he highlighted the strategic necessity of this increase.
Colby remarked: “Australia is currently well below the 3 per cent level advocated for NATO … and Canberra faces a significantly greater challenge from China.”
Hegseth echoed this same sentiment, stressing the importance of allies sharing the defence burden. “Those who long for peace must prepare for war,” he said, underscoring the administration’s position on collective security responsibilities.
These sudden and dramatic developments have left many policymakers in shock and confusion. Australian leaders, aiming to reassure the public there is no immediate crisis, have sought to mitigate US sentiment.
Anthony Albanese reaffirmed Australia’s independent foreign policy and commitment to supporting Ukraine, emphasising bipartisan support for international law and sovereignty. Defence Minister Richard Marles acknowledged US calls for increased defence spending and highlighted Australia’s existing commitments, noting an additional $50bn allocated over the coming decade. Jim Chalmers worked to reassure markets about the potential economic impacts of US isolationist policies, underscoring the strength and resilience of the Australian economy and its defence commitments.
Central to the entire future security debate for Australia is the future of AUKUS, specifically Australia’s aim to acquire nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines sometime early in the next decade. Concerns within the new administration and the US Navy have arisen regarding America’s capacity to maintain sufficient numbers of US-flagged Virginia-class submarines at a time when it faces a threat to its undersea warfare dominance from the Chinese navy in the coming years.
Other reports confirm the US submarine industrial base is under severe strain, with the US-based Heritage Foundation noting funding constraints have resulted in the approval of only one new Virginia-class submarine in the past financial year. Colby expressed reservations in his testimony about America’s ability to supply Australia with the promised submarines without compromising its own naval capabilities – something Donald Trump is unlikely to accept. And all of this at federal election time.
With the likelihood of a minority government from sometime in May, a rushed, cyclone-induced federal budget, and a current plan to grow the defence budget from its current levels to around 2.4 per cent by 2033-34 – nowhere near the now expected 3 per cent the Americans are asking for – policymakers and military strategists on both sides of the Pacific must surely be wondering how assured the delivery of 3-5 Virginia-class submarines is in a time where realism is the dominant political theory of the White House.
So, will the US abandon AUKUS as the world re-enters a new age of empires, where rules are overridden by raw national power? Australia’s geopolitical position has always necessitated a careful balancing act, one in which we ally ourselves with major powers and, in so doing, enjoy the comfort of their security obligations – first the British, then the Americans. But no more.
If Australia is to convince the US that it is in its interests to maintain its commitment to delivering the 3-5 Virginia-class submarines under current AUKUS arrangements, it should expect to pay for far more than just submarines.
It should also anticipate increased defence spending and fulfilling an obligation to the Americans to contribute more in the region. Australia is now part of a US tribute system, where countries extract benefits from alliances based on their contributions. This represents the transactional nature of US-led security guarantees and reflects the new reality.
With this kind of pressure, the government now faces genuine dilemmas in determining national priorities. Properly funding defence is no longer merely an option, but a necessity. The upside is Australia will, arguably for the first time, take seriously the notion of its military capability. With this change will come real national power and, when necessary, the ability to generate its own form of self-reliant defence.
Brigadier Ian Langford (retired) holds a PhD from Deakin University and is a tenured professor at the University of NSW.
More Coverage
Chalmers is already gaming ‘reform’ roundtable
Chalmers is perfectly entitled to make political comments. But it’s another thing to claim to have delivered ‘a better living standard’ when per capita GDP has declined in seven of the past nine quarters.
Recognising Palestine state would be a mistake
While the savagery of Hamas required a strong Israeli reaction, that doesn’t absolve Israel morally or politically for the responsibility it now has for the two million people in Gaza, and their basic human needs.
The recent dynamics between the Trump administration and Australia have underscored escalating tensions regarding defence commitments, including the fracturing of traditional military alliances and demands for increased military spending.