Trump’s AUKUS Gaffe Shatters Australia’s Blind Faith
Amid this week’s series of high-profile state visits to the White House, President Donald Trump made headlines once again—not for his usual bombast, but for his ignorance of the AUKUS agreement.
During a press conference, Trump was asked about the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US. His blank stare and fumbling response confirmed what many already suspected: Trump, and perhaps the US more broadly, place little significance on the alliance Canberra has pinned its security future on.
For anyone familiar with Trump’s previous presidency, his ignorance of AUKUS comes as no surprise. His leadership—both past and present—has been marked by an isolationist "America First" doctrine that de-emphasises traditional alliances, often treating America’s partners as burdens rather than assets. But for many within Australia's foreign policy establishment, his ignorance serves as a wake-up call—reinforcing the warnings of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who has long argued that Australia is backing the wrong horse in its geopolitical relationships.
Keating has been an outspoken critic of AUKUS since its inception, warning that it shackles Australia to an unreliable partner—a prediction that is proving accurate. While Australia has committed to spending upwards of $368bn on nuclear-powered submarines under the deal, America’s commitment is far less certain. Trump’s inability to recognise AUKUS not only exposes his own lack of geopolitical knowledge but also highlights Washington’s broader indifference to alliances that do not serve its immediate interests.
Australia has long assumed that its alliance with the US serves as a security guarantee in case of a regional conflict. This belief is deeply entrenched in Australia's strategic doctrine and has been a key justification for its involvement in successive US-led wars, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. But as Trump’s dismissal of AUKUS illustrates, the notion that America would unconditionally come to Australia’s defence in a crisis is, at best, an optimistic assumption and, at worst, a dangerous delusion.
Trump’s response is part of a broader trend in US foreign policy. His administration, like his previous one, takes a transactional approach to alliances—where commitments depend on immediate strategic interests rather than enduring obligations. While the Biden administration embraced AUKUS and reassured Canberra of Washington’s commitment, Trump’s return to office has thrown those assurances into doubt. The volatile nature of American politics means Australia’s strategic reliance on the US is more precarious than ever.
Furthermore, the growing isolationist streak within the Republican Party, coupled with a rising bipartisan consensus that the US must prioritise its own domestic challenges, casts doubt on how much Australia can rely on American military backing in a genuine security crisis. If Trump doesn’t even recognise AUKUS, what does that say about Washington’s commitment to the agreement?
For years, Keating has warned that Australia's unquestioning loyalty to Washington is unwise. He has argued that Australia should pursue a more independent foreign policy—one that acknowledges the shifting balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. Instead of doubling down on its reliance on the US, Keating continues to advocate for stronger regional engagement, particularly with China, which remains Australia’s largest trading partner.
Keating’s scepticism of AUKUS stems from his belief that it unnecessarily provokes China and does little to enhance Australia’s security. Furthermore, he questions the economic and strategic viability of the submarine program, highlighting that it locks Australia into dependence on US military technology, which may or may not be delivered on time—or at all.
Trump’s moment of cluelessness reinforces Keating’s concerns. If the US can’t be relied upon to recognise a major security agreement it spearheaded, how can Australia expect it to provide military support in the event of a war? Australia has bet its national security on an alliance that may not hold when it matters most.
Australia’s policymakers must now grapple with the implications of Trump’s response. The assumption AUKUS represents a firm and enduring commitment from Washington is looking increasingly shaky. If Trump and the US continue down this path—where alliances are regarded as disposable—Australia may find itself holding an expensive and strategically dubious investment with little actual backing from the US.
Australia must reassess its strategic position. Instead of obsequiously tying itself to Washington’s shifting priorities, Canberra should adopt a more flexible and self-reliant approach to security. That means diversifying Australia’s defence partnerships, investing in regional diplomacy, and reconsidering its stance towards China in a way that balances economic interests with security concerns.
Trump’s AUKUS gaffe is more than an embarrassing moment—it’s a symptom of a larger problem in Australia's foreign policy thinking.
The illusion of unwavering American support is just that: an illusion. As Keating’s repeatedly warned, Australia’s best path forward lies not in its blind allegiance to Washington, but in a more pragmatic, independent approach to its place in the world.
Yet again, you express the truth so very clearly and despite the deluded politicians and others who would decry your words.
Keating, of course, was probably our most erudite and certainly our most incisive and articulate Prime Minister ever. His mind remains as sharp as ever, judging by what I read or see in the media.
If the Albanese government actually wants to remain in office, the one most significant act it could make would be to cancel the Aukus agreement and immediately improve and cement its alliances with Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
Australian governments have always been sycophantic followers of other nations, first of Britain and then of the USA. We have never had a truly independent foreign policy, in spite of clear evidence that we were considered sacrificial, (if it suited those major 'allies'), during WWII and only used for convenience of others ever since.
The obsolescence and stupidity of our nation continuing to be a subject of the obsolescent British monarchy which proved itself perfectly willing to engage in subterfuge with a Federal Opposition leader and a less than sober, competent or trustworthy Governor-General which we neither need nor should want, is evidence enough of the continuing failure of successive governments of either major party to put Australian interests and the Australian people first.
That continuous sycophancy and kowtowing, not least the latest failures to condemn Israel and the United States for its role in funding and arming its criminal Prime Minister, even to the point of *not* arresting him when he visited the US, thus showing its disdain for the UN and the principles upon which our international law is founded, already of course being displayed in its many other moves at the UN in support of Israel's perfidy.
When one steps back and takes a clear view of Australia's major international relationships, i.e. with Britain and then the USA, and the delusional fondness for the activities and institutions of those nations, it is not hard to see an unfortunate reflection of the worst aspects of the nation and an infantile devotion on our part to their most glossy but puerile offerings and portrayals through entertainment and ritual, looking very much as though intentional propaganda. I don't say that it has been but it certainly shares most of the attributes of such.
We need many more of Keating's intellect and insight and ability to make hard decisions without fear or favour - unfortunately they seem to be few on the ground or, perhaps, they are busy doing the hard yards in difficult, dangerous but compassionate work assisting the many human beings around the World who are in dire straits because of the abominable preoccupation of self-important demagogues or would-be so's, who would rather use massive resources to play unnecessary military games and purchase what almost always proves to be obsolescent hardware which to anyone of reasonable intelligence and intellect is obviously no more than a bluff of grandstanding that will repel no major power, should one choose to attack or occupy our continent.
If we really wish to provide most effectively for our own safety and ability to repel any attempt at an occupation of Australia, we would be far better off to take a leaf from Switzerland's book by both becoming neutral and focusing any military expenditure on intelligence and ability to ensure that the whole population is trained and ready to defend our nation should it be necessary.
Yes, of course I am aware of the significant differences in geography between ourselves and Switzerland but, although so different, in many ways we have comparable geo-political benefits if we chose to utilise them for defense and, at the same time, could reduce our positioning as a target by not chasing the coat-tails of northern hemisphere demigods who, if the chips are down, will attempt to save themselves rather than us.
Excellent post. Anyone with half a brain has long been concerned with our lackey ally status with the US who would dump us in a nanosecond if needed and/or use our bodies in a war against China as they have done the Ukrainians against Russia.