The second Trump administration’s trade policies and assertive defense diplomacy have unsettled key Asian allies, straining some relationships while drawing others into deeper military cooperation. This approach has raised concerns about diminishing strategic autonomy among U.S. partners and the potential for pushing them closer to China.
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with visiting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on July 15, 2025. (Photo: Feng Yongbin / CHINA DAILY)
The second Trump administration’s ‘fire and fury’ foreign policy has shocked and rankled America’s closest allies, especially in Asia. In July, U.S. President Donald Trump issued similarly-worded letters to 14 counterparts, threatening them with massive sanctions unless they agreed to new trade deals on his terms. “To give adjectives to the reaction or response, it would be, number one, shock. Number two, frustration. And number three, anger,” a former senior Japanese official told the media.
Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba publicly called on his country to reduce “dependence” on America and, instead, become “self-sufficient in security, energy and food..." The Trump administration’s roughshod treatment of international partners gave a clear opening to rivals to project themselves as responsible stakeholders. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reiterated that his country is committed to “defend[ing] free trade and the multilateral trading system” and expressed his confidence that “Trump tariffs will be pushing these countries closer to China.” Additionally, July also saw Australian Prime Minister Albanese visiting Beijing shortly after winning re-election, while seemingly shunning Trump so far.
Compared to others, the Philippines is facing not only relatively milder tariffs but also generally supportive military posture by the second Trump administration. Nevertheless, all frontline U.S. allies are facing pressure on multiple fronts. After all, Trump’s coercive trade policy has coincided with a more aggressive defense diplomacy. The Pentagon is reportedly pressuring key Indo-Pacific allies to clarify their readiness to participate in any major regional conflict on America’s side. As a result, countries as varied as the Philippines, Australia, and Japan could soon struggle to effectively hedge in between competing superpowers. The potential upshot is the diminishing strategic agency of frontline allies, who have studiously preserved mostly stable ties with Beijing in recent years.
Impossible Choices
The “12 Day War” between regional powers Israel and Iran, coupled with the re-intensification of the Ukraine conflict in recent weeks, has raised serious concerns over America’s ability to remain an effective anchor of stability in the Indo-Pacific. Fears over protracted conflicts in traditional theatres of Europe and the Middle East have deepened lingering doubts over America’s ‘Asia policy.’
Having struggled to focus the U.S.’ strategic bandwidth on China, the so-called ‘prioritizers’ in the second Trump administration are ramping up pressure on Asian allies. Elbridge Colby, U.S. undersecretary of defence for policy, has been pressing allies in Tokyo and Canberra to commit to any joint military response in an event of a major conflict with China.
Colby, one of the architects of the first Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy, has consistently argued that China is the primary challenger to America’s hegemony and, therefore, Asia should be Washington’s ultimate priority. Throughout the years, he has expressed skepticism over America’s potential over-involvement in aiding anti-Russia operations in Ukraine as well as military action against Iran. Perturbed by the precipitous decline in America’s ammunition due to involvement in multiple conflicts around the world, he reportedly played a key role in America’s suspension of defense aid to Ukraine earlier this year.
On his social media account, Colby has defended the Pentagon’s recent moves as part of the Trump administration’s goal of “restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength [by] urging allies to step up their defence spending and other efforts related to our collective defence.” The growing pressure on U.S.’ allies in Asia is, according to a U.S. official, aimed at achieving deterrence in a “balanced” and “equitable way,” which is crucial to “ensuring the United States and its allies have the military strength to underwrite diplomacy and guarantee peace.”
But key U.S. allies have, so far, demurred. Facing a trade war with America, and alarmed over Trump’s own ambivalence over the Taiwan question, Japanese officials have insisted that any response would be case-specific and in accordance with international law. In a sharp departure from Western powers, Japan condemned Israel’s unilateral attacks on Iran as a violation of international law. This highlights Tokyo’s reticence with joining any new Cold War as well as its commitment to a rules-based international order.
Amid a heated election campaign, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has adopted an unprecedentedly sharp tone on America. “This is a battle for national interests. We will not be disrespected,” he declared during a campaign rally following Trump’s latest trade ultimatum to Tokyo. “We must say what we need to say, fairly and squarely, even to our ally,” he added, emphasizing the vexation of key Asian powers with America’s overbearing posture.
A Tango with Superpowers
Australia, who is pursuing a multi-billion nuclear-powered submarine deal with Washington under the AUKUS (Australia-UK-U.S.) pact, has also refused to provide any categorical commitment. Australia’s defence industry minister Pat Conroy has publicly refused to commit troops to any potential contingency in Taiwan. He has insisted that “[w]e don’t engage in hypotheticals.” Canberra was even more non-committal than Tokyo by emphasizing that any decision would “be made by the government of the day” as a reflection of Australia’s sovereign prerogative. Prime Minister Albanese’s recent visit to Beijing, which culminated in major investment deals, was a clear signal that Australia was instead committed to maintaining robust trade and diplomatic ties with China.
Unlike Japan and Australia, the Philippines has not faced any pressure to either ramp up its defense spending nor commit to deploying troops to any Taiwan contingency. If anything, the Trump administration has doubled down on defense aid to and military cooperation with Manila. Aside from deploying state-of-the-art weapons systems, including the Typhon missile system and Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), the U.S. is also mulling establishment of a ship repair facility as well as a weapons production and storage complex on Philippine soil near the contested South China Sea.
The Philippines has largely welcomed the second Trump administration’s strategic bear hug, viewing it as a critical step towards accelerating its own military modernization, the development of a local defense industry, and acquisition of advanced weapons systems. While not committing to get involved in any Taiwan contingency, Manila has conducted joint exercises with Americans close to Taiwan shores as well as given the Pentagon access to its northernmost military facilities, which would play a pivotal role in any major conflict.
While America’s defense assistance is crucial to augmenting the Philippines’ limited deterrence capability, it also risks undermining the Southeast Asian nation’s ability to develop strategic autonomy after a century of over-reliance on America. Worse, it also raises the risk of permanently locking Manila into a U.S.-led Cold War against China. As things stand, the Trump administration is simultaneously straining ties with some allies while constraining others through an embrace that limits their strategic autonomy.
