EDITOR'S CORNER: AUKUS In Doubt?

In this post, we take a closer look at AUKUS — the ambitious security pact between Australia, the UK, and the US. Designed to boost military power, create jobs, and counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, AUKUS has been hailed as a once-in-a-generation strategic win for the United States.

So why is President Trump now putting it under review?

With billions at stake and one of America’s closest allies in the balance, the decision to question AUKUS is raising eyebrows across the globe. Is this a shift in strategy — or something bigger?

WHAT IS AUKUS? 

AUKUS is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced in 2021 with the goal of reshaping the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. At its core, the deal enables Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, marking a significant leap in its naval capabilities. But AUKUS goes beyond submarines — it includes cooperation on advanced technologies like cyber security, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, all aimed at countering China's growing military and technological influence in the region.

For the U.S., AUKUS represents more than just a defence contract — it's a strategic investment in long-term alliances. By equipping Australia with cutting-edge capabilities, the deal extends American influence deep into the Pacific, while also generating massive revenue and job opportunities for the U.S. defence sector. It’s a rare example of diplomacy, economics, and military strategy aligning — which is exactly why Trump's sudden skepticism has sparked concern. It's two pronged approach in arming Australia and bolstering it's capabilities. 

This whole thing is worth about US$239 billion, and has a timeline of up to 30 years, with Australia projected to get the first nuclear sub in 2032. 

WHY HAS THE USA PUT THE DEAL UNDER REVIEW?

All three nations that signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021 — Australia, the UK, and the US — are now led by different governments, each reassessing whether the pact still aligns with today’s shifting security landscape. In the United States, officials in the Trump administration have raised concerns about the strain that supplying six nuclear-powered submarines to Australia could place on an already overstretched American submarine industrial base. The U.S. currently builds only about 1.2 submarines per year, far short of the 2.3 needed to meet both domestic and AUKUS-related demands. This shortfall is driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of the specialized skills required to build such advanced vessels.

While the trilateral agreement includes tens of billions in investments aimed at boosting submarine production capacity and creating U.S. jobs, the Trump administration is still weighing whether the deal is sustainable. At the same time, AUKUS offers significant long-term strategic advantages in the Indo-Pacific, a region central to America’s future defense posture. A stronger Australia complicates China’s military calculus and enhances regional deterrence. However, under Trump’s more isolationist “America First” philosophy, even longstanding alliances and multilateral defence partnerships like AUKUS are being reevaluated — and increasingly met with skepticism.

 

WOULD AMERICA DARE TO STEP AWAY?

If Trump decides to withdraw from AUKUS — a deal made under President Biden’s term — it would send a bad message to U.S. allies around the world. It would raise serious doubts about the Trump administration’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific, especially at a time when the region is becoming the central focus of U.S. defence strategy. Allies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan could start to question whether they can really depend on the U.S. for security guarantees and future defence cooperation. This would be a major blow, especially when the U.S. has recently been warning about the growing threat from China’s military and openly shifting its long-term defence priorities away from Europe and toward Asia.

Backing out of AUKUS early would signal that the U.S. isn’t serious about standing by its closest allies, like Australia and the United Kingdom. It would also reflect poorly on NATO and key European allies, who are already feeling the pressure — especially after recent remarks comparing Canada to the "51st state" and comments about invading Greenland. On top of that, walking away from AUKUS now would make it look like the U.S. defence manufacturing base is too fragile to support major global commitments. That kind of message would be a gift to adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran — who would likely see it as a sign of weakness, and look for ways to take advantage of it in the long run.

CONCLUSION

AUKUS is more than a defence deal — it’s a signal of U.S. commitment to its allies and its role in the Indo-Pacific. Withdrawing now would damage trust, weaken deterrence, and hand strategic ground to rivals like China.

As the Trump administration reviews the pact, the stakes go beyond submarines. This decision will show whether the U.S. intends to lead with strength and reliability — or risk undermining its own influence in a region that matters more than ever.