How senior Australian figures saved AUKUS pact from 'existential threat'
Senior US officials and leading Australians helped steer the Pentagon’s AUKUS review away from threatening the landmark security partnership.
The Pentagon’s AUKUS review was dialled down from posing an “existential threat” to landmark security partnership because of the influence of senior US officials in the Trump administration and the efforts of leading Australians, including Scott Morrison, Kevin Rudd and Richard Marles.
Engagement from the US State Department and National Security Council was critical in placing the review in the “proper perspective of the alliance relationship”, Washington insiders said, while the unveiling in September by the Albanese government of a $12bn investment for the Henderson shipyard in Western Australia was a “key factor”.
Mr Morrison, the Australian founder of the AUKUS partnership, made personal efforts behind the scenes to make the case for the agreement and steer the review into safer shoals – although this was not at the behest of the Albanese government.
The visit of Mr Marles – Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister – to Washington in August, where he met with Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was also believed to have smoothed the passage for a softer landing for the AUKUS review.
While the review endorses Donald Trump’s full steam ahead approach to the pact, Washington is still adamant Australia must lift its defence spending and ensure AUKUS investments don’t displace other defence capabilities.
The new details can be revealed as Mr Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong return to Washington to meet their US counterparts, Pete Hegseth and Mr Rubio respectively, for the 40th AUSMIN meetings.
Critical minerals and deterrence against China were expected to be key issues on the agenda, with Mr Marles also due to discuss improvements to AUKUS at a trilateral meeting with Mr Hegseth and British Defence Secretary John Healey on Wednesday, local time.
The diplomatic efforts of Dr Rudd, senior figures from Britain and prominent players in the US congress, including chair of the US Senate armed services committee Roger Wicker, were all seen as vital in securing a positive AUKUS review.
US Studies Centre chief executive Michael Green told The Australian it was “clear the initial effort to call into question AUKUS has failed, and that it enjoys strong support up to the President.”
Dr Green, a former member of the National Security Council in the George W. Bush White House, said it was clear the review led by the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Elbridge Colby, had changed course while it was being conducted. He said initial efforts to cast doubt over the security partnership were “quickly put in a box by more senior people in the US government”.
“Senior officials who came in sceptical about AUKUS were told to get back in line. When you have the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defence all endorsing AUKUS … that closes the door for efforts to end the program,” he said.
“And Bridge Colby before government was clear in his scepticism about AUKUS. The review was initiated by his office. But within a few months, the Pentagon announced it would be an interagency review and would also include congress and the allies. So that was the first indication more senior and more powerful members of the US government were not going to broach an attack on AUKUS.
“This was a unilateral play by the Under Secretary of Defence. It was not something the navy wanted. It was not something the NSC wanted. It was not something the State Department wanted. It was not something congress wanted.”
The Australian was informed that the engagement of the State Department and NSC in the review process was critical because they appreciated the value of AUKUS as a military deterrent against China – the key rationale for the trilateral security partnership between the US, Britain and Australia.
One insider said there was no co-ordinated effort to influence the Pentagon and no “decisive moment” that helped to shift the focus of the AUKUS review, instead arguing that the course correction was “crowd-sourced”.
Another said these efforts did not so much change the direction of the review as put it in its proper context. “It was dialled down as a potential existential challenge to AUKUS to one where genuine practical issues and concerns with AUKUS implementation can be raised and addressed,” they said.
“The elevation and movement on Henderson funding was a key factor. The threat to AUKUS was overstated … At the end of the day, the alliance wins out.”
Andrew Baker, formerly Mr Vance’s national security adviser and now Deputy National Security Adviser on the NSC, was identified as a key US figure who helped “stitch together this basket they threw over the review to make sure it was sensible.”
Dr Green told The Australian that the August visit of Mr Marles “in advance of the Trump/Albanese summit” and then the meeting between the two leaders in October was crucial in locking in a positive AUKUS review.
“In that first month or two, I think there was real anxiety about the program,” he said.
“And the critics of AUKUS seized on that. But they made a mistake in assuming Donald Trump destroys anything in front of him. If it is a good deal for America – and his cabinet convinced him it was – then he’ll stick with it.”
Dr Green said he expected the US to use the AUSMIN meetings to ask Australia to increase its defence spending while seeking to narrow down the focus of AUKUS pillar 2.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout