
Hegseth: US will stand by Indo-Pacific allies against ‘imminent' China threat
He said Washington will bolster its defences overseas to counter what the Pentagon sees as rapidly developing threats by Beijing, particularly in its aggressive stance towards Taiwan.
China has conducted numerous exercises to test what a blockade would look like of the self-governing island, which Beijing claims as its own and the US has pledged to defend.
China's army 'is rehearsing for the real deal', Mr Hegseth said in a keynote speech at a security conference in Singapore.
'We are not going to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.'
China has a stated goal of having its military have the capability to take Taiwan by force if necessary by 2027, a deadline that is seen by experts as more of an aspirational goal than a hard war deadline.
But China also has built sophisticated man-made islands in the South China Sea to support new military outposts and developed highly advanced hypersonic and space capabilities, which are driving the US to create its own space-based Golden Dome missile defences.
Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a global security conference hosted by the International Institute for Security Studies, Mr Hegseth said China is no longer just building up its military forces to take Taiwan, it's 'actively training for it, every day'.
Mr Hegseth also called out China for its ambitions in Latin America, particularly its efforts to increase its influence over the Panama Canal.
He urged countries in the region to increase defence spending to levels similar to the 5% of their gross domestic product European nations are now pressed to contribute.
'We must all do our part,' Mr Hegseth said.
He also repeated a pledge made by previous administrations to bolster US military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific to provide a more robust deterrent.
While both the Obama and Biden administrations had also committed to pivoting to the Pacific and established new military agreements throughout the region, a full shift has never been realised.
Instead, US military resources from the Indo-Pacific have been regularly pulled to support military needs in the Middle East and Europe, especially since the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
In the first few months of president Donald Trump's second term, that has also been the case.
In the last few months the Trump administration has taken a Patriot missile defence battalion out of the Indo-Pacific in order to send it to the Middle East, a massive logistical operation that required more than 73 military cargo aircraft flights, and sent Coast Guard ships back to the US to help defend the US-Mexico border.
Mr Hegseth was asked why the US pulled those resources if the Indo-Pacific is the priority theatre for the US.
He did not directly answer but said the shift of resources was necessary to defend against Houthi missile attacks launched from Yemen, and to bolster protections against illegal immigration into the US.
At the same time, he stressed the need for American allies and partners to step up their own defence spending and preparations, saying the US was not interested in going it alone.
'Ultimately a strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners is our key strategic advantage,' he said.
'China envies what we have together, and it sees what we can collectively bring to bear on defence, but it's up to all of us to ensure that we live up to that potential by investing.'
The Indo-Pacific nations caught in between have tried to balance relations with both the US and China over the years.
Beijing is the primary trading partner for many, but is also feared as a regional bully, in part due to its increasingly aggressive claims on natural resources such as critical fisheries.
Mr Hegseth cautioned that playing both sides, seeking US military support and Chinese economic support, carries risk.
'Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our defense decision space during times of tension,' Mr Hegseth said.
China usually sends its own defence minister to this conference, but Dong Jun did not attend this year in a snub to the US and the erratic tariff war Mr Trump has ignited with Beijing, something the US delegation said it intended to capitalise on.
'We are here this morning. And somebody else isn't,' Mr Hegseth said.
Mr Hegseth was asked by a member of the Chinese delegation, made up of lower level officers from the National Defence University, how committed it would be to regional alliances. In some, China has a more dominant influence.
Mr Hegseth said the US would be open to engaging with any countries willing to work with it.
'We are not going to look only inside the confines of how previous administrations looked at this region,' he said.
'We're opening our arms to countries across the spectrum — traditional allies, non-traditional allies.'
Mr Hegseth said committing US support for Indo-Pacific nations would not require local governments to align with the West on cultural or climate issues.
It is not clear if the US can or wants to supplant China as the region's primary economic driver. But Mr Hegseth's push follows Mr Trump's visit to the Middle East, which resulted in billions of dollars in new defence agreements.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mirror
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
British fighter jets 'to carry nuclear bombs for first time' over Russia threat
British fighter jets could soon carry nuclear bombs for the first time in history as the threat from evil Vladimir Putin against the UK and the West continues to mount British fighter jets could soon carry nuclear bombs for the first time in history as the threat from Vladimir Putin mounts. The UK government is reportedly in talks to purchase jets with the ability to fire nuclear weapons, stepping up its deterrents against Russia and its increasing hostility. This weapons move could be the biggest progression in the UK's nuclear deterrents since the Cold War. The aircraft the government has allegedly set its eyes on are American-made fighter jets that are able to launch gravity bombs, which use up less power and energy than standard nukes and are more popular with the military. Defence Secretary John Healey and the head of the armed forces, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, are looking to grow the UK's military capability by purchasing these jets. Sir Keir Starmer has reportedly also thrown his support behind the idea. Talks with the Pentagon over purchasing these combat aircrafts are believed to have taken place, according to The Sunday Times. The government has not confirmed these talks but Healey said the UK had to adjust for the "new era of threat" posed to the country. He told The Sunday Times: "The world is definitely becoming more dangerous. Nuclear risks are rising. We face now, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, seriously increasing risks of state-on-state conflict." These combat jets could work with the B61, which is a nuclear air-dropped bomb used by the US. The slim and long bomb can slot under fighter jets and be dropped when needed, rather than launched like a missile. This potentially imminent nuclear military development comes after Russia issued a series of threats to the UK in recent weeks. Russia has reportedly put together a secret list of places on dictator Putin's "hit list", supposedly including several UK towns and cities. Secret documents revealed Russia's nuclear hit list has 32 targets across NATO, including a shipyard in Cumbria, a factory in Hull and a site near Edinburgh. Russia's main target was said to be the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness. Another report suggested other potential locations on the list include Aldershot, Colchester, Portsmouth, Chatham, Tidworth and Salisbury. Putin has previously threatened the UK and other countries but has failed to follow through on any attacks, other than on Ukraine. Despite this, the threats and hostility from Moscow have continued to grow. One of Putin's mouthpieces recently said Russia should wipe the UK off the map in a chilling threat. Sergei Karaganov, one of the dictator's leading military experts, said Britain "won't exist" following a nuclear attack. Karaganov added: "We need to strengthen nuclear deterrence by any means."

The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Whether 1988 or 2025, we want politicians with something real to say
Labour currently hold 50 of Scotland's 72 seats in the House of Commons and are growing to dislike the moniker the 'feeble fifty'. Devolution is still 10 years off, Neil Kinnock is still failing rightwards in the forlorn search for the centre ground, the poll tax is poised to roll out across Scotland and Mrs Thatcher has no notion she is entering her final years in Downing Street. At this confluence of events in 1988, Labour found themselves defending the seat of Glasgow Govan after the incumbent MP Bruce Millan made an unparliamentary bid for freedom, escaping the House of Commons for the comfort of a European Commission job in Brussels. Just over a year earlier, Millan won Govan with a majority of just over 19,500, with Labour taking 65% of the vote. The SNP attracted just 3851. All of which must have given Labour a significant degree of earned confidence about their chances of holding on to the constituency. But in November 1988, the political weather was changing. Labour nominated trade unionist Bob Gillespie. The SNP selected Jim Sillars. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll In contrast with Sillars's native wit and quick repartee, it became obvious Gillespie was not a polished media performer. When the gabs were given out, Gillespie missed out on the gift. Notwithstanding these obvious vulnerabilities, STV was still able to coax all eight of the Govan by-election candidates to submit themselves to the cameras to answer questions in front of a live studio audience. The raft of candidates included Gillespie, Sillars, a fresh-faced Bernard Ponsonby, my old university colleague Douglas Chalmers for the Communists, and Screaming Lord Sutch for the Monster Raving Loonies. During the programme, the candidates were given the opportunity to cross-examine one another on a topic of their choice. What happened remains a cautionary tale for contemporary media handlers, which may go a long way to explaining the many absences of the Invisible Man currently in the running to represent Labour in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse in Holyrood. With a Cheshire cat's grin and a feline look in either eye, Sillars took the opportunity to ask Gillespie a technical question on what he thought about 'additionality' in European funding programmes. Visibly stumped, but unwilling to admit that he hadn't the foggiest what Sillars was talking about, Gillespie rambled. A polished deflection, it wasn't. As Sillars recalls, Gillespie was so flummoxed, he managed to knock over his microphone during his answer. The debate performance was widely perceived as a disaster, and the SNP went on to beat Gillespie in Govan by more than 3500 votes. Gillespie, to some extent unfairly, got a lot of the blame from his party colleagues, who insulated themselves from more troubling questions about why they lost by concluding they'd selected a duff candidate who squandered their natural advantages. But in 1988 as in 2025, you can only be eloquent if you actually have something to say. Labour's havers about how to resist the poll tax – if resist it they would at all – arguably had much more to do with the party's fate in Govan than one ashen-faced performance by the candidate facing a technical ambush by a wily opponent. But the Govan debate has always struck me as an interesting political moment – and a risky strategy for Sillars to have adopted. One bad answer on an obscure issue of European policy seems unlikely to sink a political campaign – though a bad turn can certainly confirm existing perceptions and prejudices about a candidate, fixing their reputations, feeding doubts, giving their opponents reasons to feel encouraged. But gotcha moments like this can easily rebound on the clever politicians who spring these kinds of traps on their goodhearted but hapless opponents. There's a very fine line – which has perhaps grown even finer since 1988 – between exposing your opponents' ignorance of big policy issues of the day, and coming off as an intellectual bully and a snob. Characteristically, Sillars got away with it. I found myself wondering if painful memories of Govan may have something to do with Labour's decision not to give reporters meaningful opportunities to ask their candidate in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election impertinent questions. You can understand the calculation. If the risks of your candidate participating in a political debate significantly outweigh the benefits to your campaign of exposing your boy to searching questions – from the media or anyone else – the safer thing to do is to pretend you're out pestering constituents at the crack of dawn or the end of the day, rather than offering up yet another viral clip to the internet, confirming all the unflattering perceptions your opponents have seeded about the numpty you might have nominated. (Image: Gordon Terris) STV were the first to be dinghied, Davy Russell declining the opportunity to participate in a panel debate. The reasons given for declining this friendly invitation are farcical. As STV's Colin Mackay put it last week: 'Davy Russell has told newspaper journalists that he would 'rather be chapping doors and talking and listening to ordinary voters' – but given that Scotland Tonight hustings is not on until 10.40 at night, if he is chapping doors, he's likely to get chased.' It turns out Davy isn't a morning person either, or he is so much of a morning person, the good people of Hamilton should brace themselves to find him hanging off their doorbells at sparrow fart. Given the evolving excuses, it's difficult to say for sure. What we do know, however, is that Russell sadly 'wasn't able' to join BBC Good Morning Scotland's programme last week either. The programme was profiling all the candidates putting themselves forward to represent the Holyrood constituency – except for Mr Russell, who was inexplicably contemplating the universe or engaging in some wholesome homespun local activism instead. Social media hits involving the candidate have also been significantly cut and edited, resulting in ungenerous questions about whether Russell can 'string a sentence together' and suggestions he's become the 'invisible man' of the campaign, at least in terms of national coverage. Curiously, Anas Sarwar's reaction to suggestions that perhaps we should hear a bit more from his candidate and that his absence from the airwaves might suggest a lack of confidence under scrutiny was to claim these criticisms amounted to class snobbery against the whole constituency. 'That's a completely disparaging comment that is below the belt,' the Scottish Labour leader said, claiming it 'demonstrates a classist approach to someone who is from this community and speaks like someone from this community'. I don't know about you, but I haven't had to use Adobe Premiere Pro to get a coherent line or two of conversation out of folk from this particular corner of South Lanarkshire. If anything is classist, isn't it the suggestion that criticising an individual in hiding from the mildest kinds of democratic scrutiny must, somehow, represent a condescending commentary on the community itself? If your candidate refuses to talk to the media except in the most stage-managed fashion, if his minders maintain a constant cordon sanitaire around him to prevent awkward questions being asked and answered on the record – the questions aren't about your candidate's accent or his eloquence, but whether he can produce a voice at all, and what he might use that voice to say. People, generally, don't want to be embarrassed by their politicians. I may not be across every issue in public policy – but if you don't know where to start, we have a problem. Most folk don't like public speaking – but the shyest people in the room can be the most savage critics of other people's attempts and failures to force the words from their lips in a roughly coherent sequence. Being an MSP is a public-facing job. Would-be politicians dodging scrutiny deserve no sympathy. If you choose to step into the circus ring, you must expect to meet lions. If you've no idea how to fend them off, and no idea how to find the gumption to even try, you're applying to join the wrong job. If you want a quiet life, become a librarian.


Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain has lost control of its borders, says Defence Secretary
The Defence Secretary has admitted Britain has 'lost control of its borders' after nearly 1,200 migrants crossed the Channel in a single day. John Healey described the scenes on Saturday as 'shocking', saying people smugglers were able to load small boats on French shores 'like a taxi'. The 1,000-plus arrivals marked the highest number of people to cross the Channel in a single day so far this year. Some 18 dinghies were reported to have left the French coast, each carrying more than 50 migrants. The Coastguard was forced to call on fishing boats to assist a yacht and a kayak that were in trouble as Border Force vessels and lifeboats were overwhelmed rescuing people making the perilous journey. Asked about the situation on Sunday, Mr Healey admitted that Britain had 'lost control' of its borders. He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on Sky News: 'Pretty shocking, those scenes yesterday. 'Truth is, Britain's lost control of its borders over the last five years, and the last government last year left an asylum system in chaos and record levels of immigration.' He blamed France for allowing smugglers to scoop up migrants like a 'taxi' service after failing to change the rules to let police intervene in shallow waters, despite agreeing to do so. 'I think yesterday tells us a really big problem, which is, you've got French police unable to intervene and intercept the boats when they're in shallow waters,' he said. 'That means we saw it. We saw the smugglers launching elsewhere and coming around like a taxi to pick them up.' Mr Healey said France had agreed to change the rules so police can intercept boats in the water as well as on shore, but has not yet put that into effect. 'They're not doing it, but for the first time for years, for the first time, we've got the level of co-operation needed,' he said. 'We've got the agreement that they will change the way they work, and our concentration now is to push them to get that into operation so they can intercept these smugglers and stop these people in the boats, not just on the shore.' Videos on TikTok showed migrants packed onto small dinghies smiling while making the dangerous crossing. The Tories described Saturday's record crossings as a ' day of shame for Labour ' and said Britain had become a nation 'reduced to chaos on the high seas', with the Border Force at breaking point. The incident comes less than three weeks after the Prime Minister published Labour's plans to reduce net migration and toughen the requirements for migrants to work, live and study in the UK. The record-breaking crossings also come ahead of a critical by-election in Scotland this Thursday, at which Reform UK is seeking to repeat its success from the local elections in England. Nigel Farage's party is challenging the incumbent SNP in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse seat amid concerns that Scottish Labour is underperforming. Immigration is one of the touchstone issues across the Red Wall seats that Labour will have to retain to secure an outright victory at the next general election. Sir Keir has pledged to 'smash the gangs' through greater international co-operation, a new Border Security Command and Border Force, the National Crime Agency and MI5 officers vested with counter-terror style powers. However, the surge in the number of crossings – fuelled by unseasonally good weather in the early part of the year – threaten to undermine his pledge.