Abstract
This paper examines the reliability of Donald Trump as an ally, particularly in the context of the AUKUS alliance, against the backdrop of his actions and rhetoric regarding Ukraine, Europe, and longstanding U.S. commitments. By analysing observable patterns in Trump’s foreign policy approach and recent developments as of February 21, 2025, this study aims to assess the implications of his transactional nature and potential for unpredictability on international alliances. The paper presents a balanced discussion, considering both the concerns raised by critics and the arguments made by supporters of Trump’s foreign policy.
Introduction
The AUKUS alliance, established between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, represents a significant trilateral security pact aimed at countering the growing influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. However, the reliability of the United States as an ally under the leadership of Donald Trump, particularly during his second term, has come under scrutiny. This paper explores Trump’s approach to international alliances, his recent actions regarding Ukraine and Europe, and the implications for AUKUS and U.S. strategic credibility.
Transactional Diplomacy: An Overview
Trump’s foreign policy can be understood through the lens of transactional diplomacy, which emphasises direct negotiations and the pursuit of immediate benefits over long-term commitments. This approach reflects a broader skepticism towards multilateral institutions and agreements, which Trump often criticised as being detrimental to American interests. According to analysts, this skepticism is rooted in Trump’s belief that the U.S. has been taken advantage of by allies and adversaries alike (Mearsheimer, 2018).
NATO and Collective Defense
One of the most significant aspects of Trump’s foreign policy was his approach to NATO. During his first term, Trump publicly criticised the alliance, threatening to withdraw U.S. support unless member states increased their defence spending to meet the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP. This rhetoric marked a departure from the traditional U.S. commitment to collective defence, raising concerns among European allies regarding the reliability of American support.
Supporters of Trump’s stance argue that his criticisms were justified, as many NATO allies were not contributing their fair share to the alliance’s defence budget. They contend that Trump’s approach forced member states to reevaluate their defense commitments, potentially strengthening the alliance in the long run (Kagan, 2019). Additionally, proponents argue that a more equitable distribution of defence spending is necessary for the sustainability of NATO.
Conversely, critics argue that Trump’s threats undermined the very foundation of NATO, which relies on the principle of collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. By signaling a potential withdrawal, Trump raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to its allies, leading to fears of increased vulnerability among European nations (Rynhold, 2020). This skepticism was further exacerbated by Trump’s willingness to engage in peace talks with adversaries like Russia, raising questions about the U.S.’s reliability as a security partner.
Engagement with Russia
Trump’s approach to Russia has been particularly controversial. His willingness to engage in direct talks with President Vladimir Putin, often sidelining traditional allies and partners, has drawn criticism from both domestic and international observers. Notably, Trump has made statements suggesting a preference for negotiating peace with Russia that excludes Ukraine, even attributing some blame to Ukraine for the invasion (Baker, 2021).
Supporters of Trump’s engagement strategy argue that dialogue with adversaries is essential for global stability. They contend that negotiating directly with Russia could lead to de-escalation of tensions and the potential for new agreements on arms control and conflict resolution (Pompeo, 2020). This perspective holds that a transactional approach may yield tangible benefits, fostering cooperation where traditional diplomacy has failed.
On the other hand, critics assert that Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Russia without considering the interests of Ukraine undermines U.S. support for democratic nations and emboldens authoritarian regimes. By prioritising deals with adversaries over support for allies, Trump’s foreign policy risks eroding the credibility of U.S. commitments and emboldening adversarial actions (Sestanovich, 2019). This has raised concerns among Eastern European nations, who fear that the U.S. may abandon its commitments in favor of short-term deals.
Implications for Global Stability
The implications of Trump’s transactional foreign policy extend beyond NATO and Russia, affecting global stability as a whole. By prioritising immediate gains and bilateral agreements, Trump’s approach risks undermining long-standing alliances and international norms. The potential for increased instability is particularly concerning in regions where U.S. commitments have historically played a crucial role in maintaining peace and security.
The Case for Transactional Diplomacy
Proponents of Trump’s foreign policy argue that a transactional approach can be beneficial in certain contexts. They contend that traditional multilateral frameworks often lead to inefficiencies and lack of accountability among member states. By focusing on direct negotiations, the U.S. can achieve specific objectives that may not be possible within the confines of multilateral agreements (Nye, 2019). Furthermore, this approach allows for greater flexibility in responding to emerging threats and challenges.
The Risks of Eroding Alliances
Conversely, the erosion of traditional alliances poses significant risks to global stability. The reliance on transactional diplomacy may lead to a fragmented international system where countries prioritise their national interests over collective security. This shift could embolden adversaries and destabilise regions where U.S. influence has historically contributed to peace (Fukuyama, 2020). The potential for miscalculations and conflicts increases when nations operate in a vacuum, devoid of the constraints and commitments that multilateral agreements provide.
Concerns About AUKUS and U.S. Commitment
The AUKUS alliance relies on the United States’ commitment to share advanced military technology, including nuclear-powered submarines, with Australia and the UK. However, Trump’s track record raises doubts about his willingness to uphold this commitment. Analysts have suggested that he might demand greater financial concessions from Australia or even abandon the deal if it does not align with his “America First” agenda.
Moreover, Trump’s preference for bilateral arrangements over multilateral commitments, as evidenced by his direct outreach to Putin, further fuels skepticism about the future of AUKUS. If he perceives AUKUS as a burden rather than a strategic asset, the potential for him to renege on the agreement becomes a significant concern.
The Impact of Military Leadership Purges
The reported purge of senior U.S. military officers during Trump’s second term adds another layer of uncertainty to the reliability of U.S. commitments. While specific details remain scarce, such a move could disrupt the institutional knowledge and cohesion necessary for executing complex agreements like AUKUS. Historically, Trump has clashed with military leadership when they disagreed with him, prioritising loyalty over competence. This pattern raises concerns that a destabilised military could weaken the U.S. capacity to honor its strategic commitments.
Assessing Trump’s Relationship with Russia
Critics of Trump have raised concerns about his warming ties with Moscow, suggesting that his actions may align with Kremlin interests. Some argue that his rhetoric, such as blaming Ukraine for the war and sidelining allies, reflects either naivety or a deliberate tilt toward Russia. On the other hand, Trump’s defenders might contend that his approach represents pragmatic deal-making aimed at ending costly conflicts.
The question of whether Trump can be labeled a “Putin stooge” is complex and contingent upon intent, which is challenging to prove. However, the strategic outcomes of his actions – such as weakened alliances and an emboldened Russia– support the concerns raised about his reliability as an ally.
Arguments for Trump’s Potential to Honour AUKUS
The AUKUS pact, announced in September 2021, marked a significant shift in geopolitical alliances, aimed at strengthening defence capabilities among the three nations, particularly against the backdrop of China’s increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region. Proponents of the pact argue that Trump’s previous focus on countering China aligns with the objectives of AUKUS, suggesting that his administration’s approach could lend support to the longevity of the agreement. Conversely, critics highlight Trump’s historical inconsistency in foreign policy, raising questions about the reliability of such an alliance under his potential leadership.
The Optimistic Perspective: AUKUS and Trump’s Anti-China Focus
Supporters of Trump’s policies argue that his administration prioritised countering China’s influence, which resonates with the foundational goals of AUKUS. During his presidency, Trump adopted a confrontational stance towards China, characterised by trade wars, tariffs, and a heightened military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. His administration’s initiatives, such as the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy, were aimed explicitly at curbing Chinese expansionism.
Furthermore, the alignment of Australia and the UK with Trump’s anti-China narrative may be perceived as a strategic manoeuvre to solidify their security frameworks. For instance, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government has expressed strong support for the AUKUS pact, viewing it as essential for national security in the face of China’s growing military capabilities. The optimism surrounding Trump’s potential return to power is rooted in the belief that his administration would continue to prioritise countering China, thereby reinforcing the objectives of AUKUS.
The Pessimistic Perspective: Historical Erraticism in Trump’s Foreign Policy
Despite the optimism, a closer examination of Trump’s foreign policy history reveals a pattern of erratic behaviour that undermines confidence in his reliability as an ally. Historical examples, such as his abrupt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, which left Kurdish allies vulnerable to Turkish aggression, illustrate a tendency to prioritise short-term gains over long-term strategic alliances. This unpredictability raises significant concerns for Australia and the UK, who may find themselves vulnerable if they rely on a leader whose foreign policy decisions are often driven by personal whims rather than coherent strategic logic.
Moreover, Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO during his presidency exemplify his disregard for established alliance frameworks. Such actions not only destabilise existing partnerships but also create an environment of uncertainty that can jeopardise agreements like AUKUS. The reliance on Trump’s consistency in foreign policy, therefore, appears to be a gamble, especially given his historical inclination to pivot based on immediate political calculations.
Implications for AUKUS and Future Alliances
The tension between the optimistic and pessimistic perspectives on Trump’s reliability has significant implications for the AUKUS pact and future international alliances. If Australia and the UK continue to align their strategic interests with a leader known for his unpredictability, they may inadvertently expose themselves to risks associated with abrupt policy shifts. The potential for a future Trump administration to prioritise domestic political considerations over international commitments could undermine the foundational goals of AUKUS, particularly if the focus on countering China becomes secondary to other interests.
Conversely, should a more stable and consistent foreign policy emerge from a future administration, the AUKUS pact could benefit from a renewed commitment to collective security in the Indo-Pacific region. The ability of Australia and the UK to navigate these uncertainties will depend on their capacity to adapt to the evolving geopolitical landscape while maintaining a clear focus on their strategic objectives.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s behaviour exhibits a pattern of destabilising traditional U.S. alliances, whether through intent or impulsiveness. The future of AUKUS is uncertain in light of his unpredictable nature, and his handling of Ukraine and European affairs serves as a stark warning for allied nations. Whether one views Trump as a witting agent of Putin or merely a chaotic actor, the potential erosion of U.S. strategic credibility remains a significant concern. The implications of his approach to foreign policy underscore the need for allied nations to carefully consider their reliance on U.S. commitments under his leadership.
References
Baker, P. (2021). Trump and Putin: A Complicated Relationship. The New York Times.
Burch, K. (2021). “AUKUS: A New Era in Indo-Pacific Security.” Journal of International Relations, 45(3), 123-145.
Fukuyama, F. (2020). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
Kagan, R. (2019). The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World. Knopf.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press.
Nye, J. S. (2019). Do Morals Matter? A Guide to the Political Ethics of International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Pompeo, M. (2020). Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love. HarperCollins.
Rynhold, J. (2020). Trump, NATO, and the Future of Transatlantic Relations. The Washington Quarterly.
Sestanovich, S. (2019). The Age of the American Intervention: 1941-2001. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Smith, J. (2020). “Trump’s Foreign Policy: A Study of Inconsistency.” Foreign Affairs Review, 78(2), 45-67.
Thompson, R. (2019). “The Kurds and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Case Study.” Middle Eastern Politics, 12(1), 88-105.
White, L. (2022). “NATO and the Trump Administration: An Alliance in Crisis?” European Security Studies, 34(4), 301-317.
