The commander of all U.S. naval forces in the Indo-Pacific, Adm. Samuel Paparo, found himself momentarily at a loss for words during a conference for military and national security professionals in November.
He struggled to articulate how President-elect Trump’s unpredictability could potentially be leveraged positively in the context of the growing alliance between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
His attempt at optimism, expressing, “I really see a lot of continuity coming,” drew laughter from the audience. Paparo then engaged in a casual high-five with co-panelists, including Australia’s chief of intelligence and Canada’s chief of defense staff, which seemed to downplay the gravity of the discussion.
This incident at the Halifax International Security Forum highlighted a sense of cautious optimism among U.S. officials and their allies, even in the middle of uncertainty regarding the future of diplomatic relationships that were strengthened during the Biden administration. Concerns persist that Trump may disrupt the alliances forged by Biden through a focus on bilateral relationships and deal-making.
There are apprehensions that Trump could dismantle the alliances built by Biden by prioritizing individual agreements and potentially withdrawing military and economic support from the region as a conciliatory gesture towards China’s president, Xi Jinping.
However, some skeptics are finding reassurance in Trump’s appointments of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as Secretary of State and Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) as national security adviser.
Both are recognized as knowledgeable in national security matters and are perceived as allies in countering threats from the Chinese Communist Party while supporting democratic nations, which aligns with Trump’s intent to conclude ongoing conflicts under the banner of “peace through strength,” a slogan reminiscent of the Reagan era.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed a hint of optimism regarding foreign policy under the impending Trump administration during a discussion at the Brookings Institution last month. He acknowledged that while a hawkish stance might emerge, a reluctance to engage in kinetic conflicts could lead to favorable outcomes.
Nonetheless, Trump’s gestures toward Xi, including an invitation to his inauguration and recent phone conversations, as well as describing the severing of ties with Xi during the pandemic as a “bridge too far,” imply a potential softening of the hardline approach against Beijing’s aggressive military and economic tactics.
The pandemic witnessed a deterioration in U.S.-China relations, culminating in Trump authorizing his State Department to declare that Xi had engaged in genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang on his final day in office.
This unexpected move aligns with Trump’s trend of unpredictability, as remarked by Lily McElwee, a deputy director and fellow in the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in an interview with CNN. McElwee characterized the invitation to Xi, likely to be declined, as a “very, very cheap carrot” that minimally jeopardizes U.S. interests.
Similarly, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the outgoing chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, moderated his critique. He stated that resolving differences necessitates dialogue with leaders, even those with whom there is substantial disagreement, as is the case with China. He emphasized the need for preparation and strategy in diplomatic engagements and the importance of demonstrating the purpose of such visits.
Trump’s invitation to Xi further illustrates his tendency to operate outside predictable diplomatic frameworks, contrasting sharply with the Biden administration’s approach.
Biden strategically orchestrated meetings with Xi during global summits, which projected a collaborative stance with key allies. In 2022, he met Xi at the G20 in Bali, Indonesia; in 2023, they met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in California; and in 2024, they were scheduled to meet again at the APEC summit in Lima, Peru.
In comparison, Trump’s initial substantial meeting with Xi took place at his Mar-a-Lago estate early in his presidency. Trump also engaged personally with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, hosting high-profile summits in Singapore in 2018 and Hanoi in 2019.
Although these talks did not lead to denuclearization, Trump displayed no hard feelings, famously stepping into North Korea from South Korea’s demilitarized zone to shake hands with Kim in 2019.
The former president’s favorable stance toward leaders like Kim, Xi, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he referred to in September as having a “very good relationship,” raises concerns among experts regarding the vulnerability of democratic nations without U.S. backing.
Ukraine serves as a pivotal test case, where Trump has suggested that Kyiv might need to brace for a reduction in U.S. support. Meanwhile, Russia has continued to rely on assistance from North Korea, China, and Iran as it conducts its aggressive military operations.
According to Francis Fukuyama, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University, this collaboration among four authoritarian nations poses a coordinated military threat to democracy. He voiced during a Stanford panel discussion in November that “Trump is not going to save them.”
Allies of democracy in Asia frequently assert that the survival of Ukraine is critical for deterring Xi’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, particularly regarding Taiwan, a democratic nation that Xi insists must be reunified, even by force.
The Biden administration has sought to strengthen relationships with democratic countries to bolster resistance against Beijing, but uncertainty remains about how Trump would approach these alliances, particularly since Biden played a role in establishing or enhancing many of these partnerships.
These include the historic trilateral summit involving the U.S., South Korea, and Japan; elevating the Quad partnership to a leadership level (comprising the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan); and the formation of AUKUS, a military collaboration between the U.S., Australia, and the U.K.
Trump’s expectation for South Korea to increase its defense spending could lead to tension in the U.S.-South Korea alliance, as suggested by Gi-Wook Shin, the Korea Program Director at Stanford University’s Asia-Pacific Research Center, during the November panel.
This scenario might strain South Korea’s political capital in engaging with the U.S. and Japan, especially given the historical grievances that complicate cooperation with Tokyo.
Despite concerns about Trump’s team potentially favoring antagonistic relations, supporters of these initiatives remain hopeful, especially with Rubio and Waltz on board.
Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell expressed optimism at the McCain Institute Washington Forum in December, stating, “I think [Rubio] rejects the idea of withdrawing back into the United States.” He conveyed hope that innovative partnerships, such as AUKUS and the Quad, would be preserved under a new administration.
Establishing U.S. strength against China and aligning with allies in the region represents a rare area of consensus among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, which could shape Trump’s policy priorities.
Following his visit to Australia in August, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, underscored the importance of the AUKUS partnership for developing future military capabilities, including those utilizing artificial intelligence.
He noted, “Chairman Xi’s biggest concern is AUKUS,” referring to his conversations with reporters in November, while highlighting Australia’s work on an underwater drone named Ghost Shark, designed to deploy sea mines, torpedoes, drones, and missiles.
McCaul stated, “I asked, how many of these do you need to cover the Taiwan Strait, probably six to eight,” explaining his insights from briefings in Australia. “How much do they cost, $10 [million] to $20 million … my point is, this is the future we’re headed toward.”
With a background as a former chairman, McCaul anticipates voicing his concerns if Trump appears to stray from a favorable direction, stating, “I think the chair is going to be bound by whatever comes out of the White House, and while I certainly support most of those ideas, I will have some freedom and flexibility to speak my mind and try to influence and persuade people.”
