The future of the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy remains fluid. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s two visits to the region, including his recent attendance and speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, shed a little light.
U.S. Secretary Defense Pete Hegseth joined the defense leaders from across the Indo-Pacific at an informal Southeast Asia-U.S. Defence Ministers' Meeting held on the sidelines of the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 30, 2025. He outlines the Department of Defense’s vision for the region and reaffirms U.S.' commitment to the region at the meeting.
America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy involves pressuring allies to increase military spending and expand their arsenals. President Donald Trump advocates a more balanced U.S. alliance system in which allies take on greater defense responsibilities to create a mutually supportive and complementary joint combat capability with the United States. To this end, the Trump administration has been urging allies to boost their military budgets.
At the Shangri-La Dialogue, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called on Indo-Pacific allies to align with European countries by raising their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, and he emphasized closer industrial cooperation among allies in the defense sector. He noted that the U.S. has launched what it calls the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience for that purpose. Initial projects include establishing P-8 radar repair facilities in Australia and setting standards for small drone systems across the Indo-Pacific.
The U.S. is also focused on strengthening lateral ties between allies and enhancing the resilience of alliances through a networked security structure. Hegseth said he believes “a strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners is our key strategic advantage.” So the U.S. is encouraging Japan and Australia to enhance security cooperation with the Philippines to “support Philippine defense priorities” and is committed to advancing relations between itself, Japan and South Korea, as well as advancing cooperation in the Quad.
Second, the Indo-Pacific Strategy is about deterrence. On one hand, the Trump administration advocates “peace through strength” by ratcheting up military deterrence. The U.S. plans to increase next year’s defense budget to an unprecedented $1 trillion to develop the “Golden Dome” national defense system and the sixth-generation F-47 fighter jet, as well as to revitalize its defense industrial base.
In addition, the U.S. is developing capabilities to ensure it has the upper hand to secure victory in the event a conflict breaks out. It is reasonable to predict that the U.S. will expand its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region, increase regional military activities, enhance integrated air and missile defense capabilities and step up military interoperability and strategic coordination with allies to ensure victory in potential conflicts.
Third, while framed as a regional approach, the Indo-Pacific Strategy is clearly aimed at China. In essence, it serves as the primary tool for the U.S. to contain and counterbalance China as part of its broader strategic efforts. The U.S. Department of Defense considers China a peer competitor, and its military buildup and forward deployment are meant to address the “China military threat” — a concept it has promoted to sow discord between China and its neighbors.
At the Shangri-La Dialogue, Hegseth bluntly noted that while many regional countries cooperate with China economically and with the U.S. on defense, they must be careful. He said economic dependence on China will only deepen China’s malign influence and complicate U.S. defense decision space during times of tension. He also urged European allies to take on more responsibility so that “we can increase our focus on the Indo-Pacific — our priority theater.”
Fourth, the U.S. continues to leverage values as a strategic bond. While some analysts claim that Trump places little importance on values, this may understate his nuanced approach. Trump is indeed wary of imposing ideologies abroad. During his Middle East visit, he said that “so-called nation-builders have destroyed far more countries than they have built” and “far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.”
Nevertheless, values remain integral to Trump’s foreign policy. Hegseth’s speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue underscored this by highlighting America’s ideological stance. He advocated for a free and open Indo-Pacific Strategy while politically alienating China. The U.S. is also framing its narrative to play off on the concept of “democracy versus authoritarianism.” It seeks to embed values into its military strategy to enhance its appeal to allies.
Still, Trump’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which prioritizes the military, faces significant constraints.
In the first place it contradicts the Asia-Pacific region’s prevailing aspiration for peace, development and cooperation. It is currently the most stable and economically dynamic area in the world. So the U.S. is hyping up the “China threat” to create an excuse for military expansion in the region, a tactic well-known to all.
In truth, the Asia-Pacific needs a more open and inclusive development environment to support regional stability and security. But an increase in U.S. military activities is counterproductive, as it will only disrupt security. Intensified military reconnaissance near China, for example, raises the risk of accidental conflict. At the same time, the American approach of pressuring allies to boost defense spending and expand arsenals — and of instigating trouble through certain countries — will only lead to more instability and potential conflict.
Second, the U.S. approach to transatlantic relations has significantly eroded its credibility with respect to security commitments. Europe feels betrayed and abandoned by the U.S. Given that a region with such deep historical, cultural and defense ties to the U.S. feels this way, can its allies in the Asia-Pacific really expect anything better? The U.S. stokes regional tensions primarily to boost military equipment procurement and extract higher “protection fees,” but it offers no real security to countries there.
To maintain its hegemony, the United States has disregarded the historical context and actual needs of the region. It continues to pursue exclusive geopolitical policies, stoking confrontation and forming “small circles.” These actions not only defy the trend of peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit but also undermine peace, stability and prosperity. Peace and stability are the common aspirations of countries in the Asia-Pacific. In the 21st century, all parties should embrace a security concept that is collective, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable. They should forge a new path for security based on dialogue rather than confrontation, on partnership rather than alliance and on mutual benefit rather than a zero-sum outcome.
