Trump's AUKUS review is routine, not a harbinger of collapse

Sydney Morning Herald

a day ago

News that the US Department of Defence has launched an AUKUS review has Canberra's defence circles in overdrive, with familiar critics already proclaiming the pact is 'sinking'. Yet this outbreak of anxiety poses a bigger danger than the review itself. Washington's routine stocktake changes nothing fundamental: the risks are unchanged and the safeguards Australia has put in place remain fit for purpose.
Although the Pentagon has yet to confirm the review, reputable reporting – and Canberra's evident lack of surprise – makes its existence clear. Commentators have blamed everything from tariff spats to Australia's sanctions on Israeli ministers and Washington's call for higher defence spending. Far likelier, the new Trump administration has folded AUKUS into its accelerated National Defence Strategy rewrite, scheduled for release in August – the first since the partnership's AUKUS 'optimal pathway' was outlined in 2023. Notably, the US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Elbridge Colby, is steering both the AUKUS review and the National Defence Strategy rewrite.
Australia's Defence Minister, Richard Marles, has indicated publicly that he has known of it for weeks – US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth likely told him during the Shangri-La dialogue. The leak itself appears timed to squeeze Canberra ahead of a likely G7 meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese, following Australia's public refusal to lift defence spending simply because Washington asked.
Despite domination of the AUKUS discussion, the review heralds no fundamental shift for AUKUS. Defence projects are never 'run-of-the-mill', and this, Australia's most ambitious and expensive, carries a significant degree of risk. Risk that requires vigilance rather than complacency. Even so, the partnership's underlying risk profile remains unchanged. The challenges of workforce, timeframes and the low US submarine production rate remain the same as they were when the deal was announced in 2021 and Australia's nuclear-powered submarine 'optimal pathway' was agreed in 2023.
So, what will the review likely conclude? Congress already locked the key AUKUS provisions into law via the 2023 National Defence Authorisation Act, and bipartisan backing remains solid. Senior officials keep reinforcing that support: Secretary of State Marco Rubio calls AUKUS a 'blueprint' for allied co-operation; Hegseth says the president is 'fully behind it'. Even Elbridge Colby – now leading the review – told Congress in March: 'We should do everything possible to make this work.' Despite the glaring absence of AUKUS in Hegseth's Shangri-La speech, the political framing, in short, is favourable.
Why wouldn't the review be favourable? AUKUS delivers plenty for Washington. Australia is injecting $5 billion into America's submarine yards and will host US boats for maintenance, cutting transit and refit times. Beyond the deal itself, Canberra has deepened force-posture support: rotating marines through Darwin, basing US bombers and expanding logistics hubs. All this sits atop Australia's indispensable intelligence and communications infrastructure – Pine Gap and the Harold E. Holt station – that lets the US talk to its nuclear-powered submarines across the Indo-Pacific. The benefits, for America, only multiply from there.
Australia sits at the core of America's ability to respond to any China-related crisis in the Indo-Pacific – and preparing for that contingency is reportedly a pillar of the US interim National Defence Strategy. It was front and centre in Hegseth's Shangri-La speech, in which he warned of an 'imminent' regional threat from Beijing.
Across South-East and North-East Asia, Australia is viewed as Washington's closest ally. If the US back-pedalled on – or seriously weakened – AUKUS, regional capitals would notice immediately, eroding US credibility and its strategy aimed at deterring China.