Southeast Asia Survey Shows Increased Trust in the U.S.
A worker cleans the carpet next to national flags ahead of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' retreat meeting at the Langkawi International Convention Centre in Malaysia on Jan. 17, 2025. Credit - Mohd Rasfan—AFP/Getty Images
Southeast Asians expressed an increased level of trust in the U.S.—and more said they would align themselves with the U.S. over China if forced to choose, a reverse of last year's aggregated results—according to the latest State of Southeast Asia Survey Report by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, a Singapore-based think tank, published Thursday.
That was, however, before President Donald Trump unveiled a slate of new tariffs yesterday that hit the region hard. Experts caution that results could look different if polled today.
Read More: 'Inflation Day Rather Than Liberation Day': How the World Is Reacting to Trump's Latest Tariffs
The survey took place between Jan. 3 and Feb. 15, overlapping with Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20. 2,023 respondents across 11 Southeast Asian countries—the 10 ASEAN member states and Timor-Leste—were asked 'How confident are you that [the U.S./China] will 'do the right thing' for global peace, security, prosperity, and governance?'
Across ASEAN countries, levels of trust in the U.S. increased from 42.4% last year to 47.2% this year, and levels of distrust decreased from 37.6% to 33.0%. While levels of trust in the U.S. decreased in the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, trust in the U.S. nevertheless outweighed distrust in the U.S. in seven out of the 10 countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia were the exceptions—in all three countries, distrust in the U.S. exceeded trust. Last year, trust in the U.S. outweighed distrust in just five out of the 10 countries—Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
At the same time, countries' trust in China increased by 11.8 percentage points—the largest increase in trust levels of any major power—from 24.8% to 36.6% this year. Still, slightly more than half of ASEAN-10 respondents expressed more distrust than trust in China. Trust in China exceeded distrust in just four of the 10 countries—Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand.
The annual survey includes five categories of respondents: academia, think-tankers or researchers; private sector representatives; civil society, non-government organizations or media representatives; government officials; and regional or international organizations personnel. An equal 10% weighting was given to each of the 10 ASEAN member states on the basis that they each have equal say in the association's decisions. Timor-Leste, which awaits formal admission to ASEAN, was also asked to participate in the survey for the first time, although it was not included in the aggregate ASEAN scores.
Respondents were asked about trust on a five point scale from 'no confidence,' 'little confidence,' 'no comment,' 'confident,' and 'very confident.' Distrust was calculated as the sum of 'no confidence' and 'little confidence,' while trust included 'confident' and 'very confident.'
If ASEAN were forced to align itself with either the U.S. or China, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam, or 52.3% of all ASEAN-10 respondents, favored the U.S. Last year, 50.5% of ASEAN-10 respondents, or seven out of 10 countries, polled higher in favor of China for the first time since 2019. Fewer respondents in Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, however, polled in favor of the U.S. this year as compared to last.
Read More: Is Southeast Asia Leaning More Toward China? New Survey Shows Mixed Results
The 'volatility of preferences' between China and the U.S. suggests that 'Southeast Asia is an arena for contention between Washington and Beijing despite desires 'not to choose sides' in the region,' Ja Ian Chong, associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore and non-resident scholar with Carnegie China, tells TIME.
Chong says the Biden Administration bolstered ties in Asia, which might have contributed to U.S. standing even as countries geared up for a second Trump Administration. 'There was an assumption that a second Trump administration would look broadly similar to the first one, which was not too big a departure of traditional U.S. foreign and economic policy,' Chong says, adding that several Southeast Asian economies were boosted by the relocation of firms away from China due to the trade war during the first Trump Administration.
The swing from China back to the U.S. this year is also likely due to countries putting stock in the Trump Administration introducing 'restraint' on China, Sharon Seah, senior fellow and coordinator at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute's ASEAN Studies Center, tells TIME. Seah was one of the researchers behind the report.
Concerns over China potentially using its economic and military power to threaten countries' interests and sovereignty has been the main reason for distrusting China. That was reflected in the relatively higher distrust of China in Vietnam and the Philippines, countries that have had direct altercations with China over the disputed South China Sea—which was billed as the region's top geopolitical concern, overtaking worries about Israel's war in Gaza, which led last year.
But experts warn that the results may not reflect recent shifts in U.S. foreign policy.
Surveys tend to have a 'shelf life,' Mark S. Cogan, associate professor of peace and conflict studies at Japan's Kansai Gaidai University, tells TIME. When the survey took place, 'Trump foreign policy hadn't taken root,' Cogan says. Now, 'U.S. foreign policy is in a very, very large state of flux.'
Trump's freeze on foreign aid began in the middle of polling for the survey, but many of its effects in Southeast Asia were not seriously felt until the earthquake in Myanmar and Thailand on March 28, Seah tells TIME. Now, the 'real life impact on the ground' has become clear.
Read More: How Myanmar's Junta—and Ongoing Civil War—Complicates the Nation's Earthquake Recovery
Cogan also pointed to the gutting of demining programs in Vietnam and Cambodia that have been critical to building trust between those countries and the U.S.—trust that Cogan says has been eroded. 'The reestablishment of that relationship and the working to build trust again is going to take a very, very long time.'
Southeast Asian countries were among the hardest hit by Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs, announced on April 2. Cambodia faces a 49% levy, Laos 48%, Vietnam 46%, Myanmar 44%, and Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia all face levies of more than 20%.
Both Thailand and Vietnam have, during both the first and second Trump Administrations, tried leaning into their relationships with the U.S. But, Cogan says, as China has stepped up its investments in Southeast Asia and the U.S. applies punitive trade measures, more countries might wonder: 'What kind of incentive is there, but to seek greater insurance by engaging more robustly with China?'
'On one hand, there is opportunity, certainly for the United States to get involved,' says Cogan, but at the same time 'its foreign policy really says that it is retreating.'
Seah, however, warns it may be too soon to tell what impact Trump's latest tariffs will have, since several countries are engaging in negotiations with the U.S.
China under the leadership of President Xi Jinping is widely seen as more predictable than the U.S. under Trump, Seah tells TIME. 'Southeast Asia knows China's red lines and understands how the Chinese governance system works.' Concerns that the U.S. is 'distracted' by its internal politics and less able to engage with global issues polled as the highest reason for distrust in the power.
All major powers—the U.S., China, Japan, the European Union, and India—saw an increase in trust from Southeast Asia this year. Of these, Japan remains the most trusted, and its trust level increased from 58.9% to 66.8%. The E.U. overtook the U.S. for second most trusted, while the U.S., China and India followed in that order.
'Japan has been working with ASEAN for more than 50 years,' Seah tells TIME. Japan 'gradually built up its credibility' after WWII, and 'with the passage of time, consistent engagement with the region in trade, investments, [and] people-to-people exchanges has paid off.'
Cogan suggested the U.S. could learn from Japan's consistent and stable approach.
'Sometimes influence isn't found in the barrel of a gun,' he says. 'It's found through trust building, social cohesion, that kind of bonding, that reputation … that forms over decades and decades.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
20 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?


Black America Web
22 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE


CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.