Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November.
A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under review.
The White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda".
It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally.
"I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank.
On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn).
The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement.
For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time.
It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either.
But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own.
It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say.
But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia.
Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact.
Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria".
Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first.
The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending.
They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces.
"Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year.
The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front.
It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too.
"I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra.
"I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC.
There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon.
"[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says.
"Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too."
Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend".
Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to.
But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents.
Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs.
"The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio.
Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late.
Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself".
"Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden."
The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country.
Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA."
There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact.
At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them.
"[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds.
Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia.
But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal.
"I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines.
That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built.
What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely?
At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm.
The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial.
Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years.
"China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says.
If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement?
And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to?
France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence."
Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines.
"There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney."
"There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to."
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, the UK and US?
Submarine deal sends powerful message to China
The laidback Australian city key to countering China
Donald Trump is looming over Australia's election
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'Economic heart attack': 3 top experts detail how they see a possible US debt crisis unfolding
Investor concerns over a swelling government debt load were soothed last week. But some experts say the US isn't out of the woods yet. Goldman Sachs spoke to three top economic experts — Ray Dalio, Ken Rogoff, and Niall Ferguson — about rising debt levels in the US. All three said they were worried about an impending debt crisis, particularly when considering the effects of President Donald Trump's GOP tax and spending bill, which has been estimated to add trillions to the budget deficit over the next decade. That reflects a slightly more pessimistic view than the market. After a scare last month, demand for long-dated government bonds was strong this week. It was a sign that investors are feeling more comfortable about the fiscal situation in the US, after showing nerves last month after Moody's downgraded US debt and Trump's tax bill began making its way through Congress. Here are the top points each of the experts had to make: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates founder The billionaire hedge fund manager said he sees three factors determining the outlook for the US debt. How much the government pays on debt interest relative to its revenue. If interest payments keep rising, it can "unacceptably" prevent the government from spending money on other things. How much debt the government needs to sell relative to demand. If the government needs to sell more Treasurys than people are willing to buy, interest rates will have to rise. That provides a more attractive yield to investors to hold onto the US debt, but high rates also hurt markets and the economy. How much money the central bank needs to print in other to purchase the remaining debt. If demand for US Treasurys is especially weak, the Fed can step in to purchase bonds to keep the government funded. If it has to print more money to do so, that can raise inflation and ding the value of the US dollar. "One can easily measure these signs of deterioration and see movement toward an impending debt crisis," Dalio, who has long warned of troubling debt dynamics in the US, said. "Such a crisis occurs when the constriction of debt-financed spending happens, like a debt-induced economic heart attack." To prevent a crisis, Dalio said he believed the government should reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP. Reducing the debt could cause interest rates to decline around 150 basis points, he estimated, reducing interest payments on the national debt and stimulating the economy. Ken Rogoff, Harvard professor and former IMF chief economist Given Trump's current agenda, Rogoff thinks the US will likely enter a debt crisis within the next four to five years. That's faster than the five- to seven-year timeline he predicted prior to Trump's reelection. "The notion that debt is a free lunch that had been pushed by many economy-watchers is absurd," Rogoff said. "Today's larger deficit on top of already-high debt levels is setting up for a crisis that will necessitate a significant adjustment." Rogoff thinks a debt crisis could play out in two ways: Inflation spikes and results in an economic shock. "Exactly what that shock will look like is difficult to say, but it will likely be more painful than the Covid inflation shock that precipitated only relatively minor adjustments in bond markets," Rogoff said. The government could manage the debt by keeping interest rates artificially low and restricting capital flows. But those measures will hurt economic growth and essentially serve as a tax on savers in the economy, he said. Investors have long been concerned about the US debt, but the outlook is especially worrying now because long-term interest rates are going through a "normalization" from low levels that stretched over the past decade, Rogoff said. "People need to recognize that higher interest rates are here to stay and that a return to the low-rate era of the past might well prove wishful thinking," he added. Niall Ferguson, historian and Harvard researcher Ferguson thinks a crisis could be triggered by a military challenge that results in the US losing its position as a global power, as it goes deeper into debt. The British-American financial historian said his favorite gauge to determine how unsustainable national debt was is when a country spends more on interest payments for its debt than on defense. That rule, which he calls "Ferguson's Law," now applies to the US, which spent $1.1 trillion on interest payments on the national debt over the 2024 fiscal year, according to the Treasury Department. It was more than the $883.7 billion approved that year for total defense spending. Nearly every nation that has violated Ferguson's Law has lost its status as " great power" in financial markets, he said. "Any great power that pursues a reckless fiscal policy by allowing the cost of its debt to exceed the cost of its armed services is opening itself up to challenge," Ferguson said. "The US is just the latest great power to find itself in this fiscal jam." The US has been able to borrow as much as it has through now with no issues, in part because the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency and investors still see Treasurys as " risk-free," Ferguson said, meaning they have faith in the US's ability to make good on its interest payments. But that already appears to be shifting, he said, pointing to investors around the world shedding their exposure to US Treasurys and moving away from dollar assets. "I've warned the US is on an unsustainable fiscal path for 20 years now, and so at times have felt like the boy who cried 'wolf,'" Ferguson added.
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Kids are ditching traditional college for career tech programs. Parents are concerned.
Kids are ditching traditional college for career tech programs. Parents are concerned. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump signs order to combat 'woke' university accreditation process President Donald Trump directed the Justice and Education Depts. to investigate universities for 'unlawful discrimination' and 'ideological overreach. More teens are showing interest in vocational training and other non-college options after high school. Parents tend to favor traditional four-year colleges over non-degree career paths, according to a new survey from nonprofit American Student Assistance. Financial concerns and a desire for hands-on work are driving some students toward technical education. Nush Ahmed, 22, said she was "stubborn" when she went against her parents' wishes and chose to attend a career technical program 800 miles from home instead of enrolling in a traditional four-year college nearby. Her parents, who live in Buffalo, New York, and immigrated from Bangladesh, said they believed a bachelor's degree was the only path to success. But Ahmed insisted. She's one of a growing number of high school graduates turning to technical schools over two or four-year colleges at a time of spiraling student debt and new incentives for vocational education. Ahmed's choice to forego college and pursue a career working in manufacturing made her an outlier in her South Asian immigrant community, where most parents expect young women to attend college near home, she said. "I was hoping that time she would go to either medical school or engineering college to become a doctor or engineer," said her father, Shuhel Ahmed. "But she really wanted to go into to this career, so I finally decided to let her go." By the numbers: How do kids and parents feel about career technical education programs? New survey data from the nonprofit American Student Assistance shows that teen interest in college is down while interest in nondegree paths is on the rise. Meanwhile, parents are skeptical of options outside of the traditional college pathway to work. Nearly half of all students surveyed – 45% – weren't interested in going to college. About 14% said they planned to attend trade or technical schools, apprenticeships and technical bootcamp programs and 38% were considering those options. Some 66% of teens surveyed said parents supported their plans to pursue a nondegree route compared with 82% whose parents encouraged them to attend college. More: In emergency appeal, Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department Seventy percent said their parents were more supportive of foregoing education altogether right after high school rather than pursuing a nondegree program. Young people told USA TODAY that finances, along with the desire to enter the workforce without more classroom-type academics, were among their reasons for choosing technical education. The financial burden of college was on Andrew Townsend's mind when he opted out of college. Townsend graduated from high school in Golden, Colorado, this June and decided against college, saying he wanted to go to work right away. The choice was easy for Townsend, 19, because he was offered an apprenticeship as a manufacturing technician for printer manufacturer Lexmark during his senior year through his school's career and technical education program. That turned into an 18-month internship. "When I went into high school I anticipated going to college and going into biology or sports management," Townsend said. "But I can't sit still in a class, and I want to get my hands dirty and get into work. It's financially best for me right now." More: Is the push for career education prioritizing business over students? His dad, construction worker Corey Townsend, wasn't sure what path his son would take, but he supports Andrew's choice. "My family doesn't have the most amount of money," Andrew Townsend said. "Maybe if I want to go to college later on in life, that's a choice. But for now I want to focus on myself and make my life better for me." College costs vs. career technical education costs At the nation's public colleges and universities, the average cost for in-state tuition is $9,750 per year and and the average cost for out-of-state tuition is $28,386, according to researchers at the Education Data Initiative. The price tag is higher at private colleges. The average cost of tuition and fees at those schools is $38,421,. The Education Data Initiative estimates college tuition has doubled in the 21st century. The costs of career technical education varies widely by trade and program. The average cost of a complete trade school program's tuition and fees was $15,070 during the 2022-2023 school year, according to data from the federal Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. The Trump administration advances non-college options As parents and teens navigate their post-college options, President Donald Trump and his administration have championed career technical programs as a viable alternative to traditional two-year and four-year colleges. "Under my leadership, America will once again champion a culture where hard work is rewarded and equip our people with real skills for real careers that our communities are in desperate need to fill," Trump said in a Feb. 3 statement. "By offering more alternatives to higher education, we will train college-aged kids in relevant skills for the 21st century economy." More: Colleges report widespread problems with financial aid since Education Department layoffs During Trump's first term, he signed a bill called the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act into law. The law allows the federal government to provide states and local communities funding to enhance career and technical education programming. This term, the Trump administration announced it is reversing two Biden-era regulations that require states and local career technical education programs at high schools and community colleges to change the way they report on student progress to receive federal funding. What to do after high school ...if you're not heading straight to college 'They should let them follow their dreams' New survey data from Gallup, Walton Family Foundation and Jobs for the Future of 1,327 teens shows that most high school students and their parents are unaware of their post-high school options outside of the traditional four-year college path. The uncertainty resonated with Ahmed's father, who saw college as the only pathway to success for his daughter. Father and daughter now agree the path she chose has afforded her immense opportunity. If she could go back in time, Ahmed said, she would be less harsh on her parents for pushing college. Ahmed is enjoying the success that has come from completing a technical education program at the Universal Technical Institute, formerly known as NASCAR Technical Institute, in North Carolina. She works at a precision manufacturing company that specializes in metal and polymer 3D printing and has a podcast that highlights young people pursuing trade options after high school. She earns about $60,000 a year at her day job. "With the way she has gone through this and how she is doing now, I would say to parents that if kids want to try a short term school they should let them do and then see how it goes," Ahmed's father said. "If it goes well then great and if not, there's time to change. But they should let them follow their dreams." Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
This Vermont Town Loves Its Canadian Neighbors. Trump Made Things Complicated.
On the front porch of her tidy yellow house on Canusa Street — so named because it runs along the border with Canada in tiny Beebe Plain, Vt. — Jan Beadle recently removed the American flag and hung a Canadian one in its place. Ms. Beadle, who has lived along the border for 71 years, hoped that the red maple leaf rippling in the breeze would send a message to her neighbors in the country across the way: I stand with you. And I'm sorry. 'I do feel like it reflects on me, somehow,' she said of President Trump's frequent jabs at Canada, including his imposition of steep new tariffs and his talk of making it the 51st state. 'As a kid, my family went to church in Canada. I went to the movie theater there, and to a youth club. We were just a group of kids together. We weren't labeled as Canadian or American.' The economic impact of Mr. Trump's trade war with Canada is already palpable on both sides of the border. Economic data shows a steep drop-off in spending by Canadians at Vermont hotels and restaurants; normally, 750,000 Canadian visitors spend $150 million in the state each year. Governors of New England states plan to meet on Monday in Boston with leaders from five Canadian provinces to strategize about the strain in their trade relations. But in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, where many towns and villages sit close by the border, residents also fear the loss of a kinship that has run deep for as long as they can remember. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
