Shifting Tides: The National Security Implications of the United States’ Pacific Drawdown

Charles Edel, Kathryn Paik, and John Augé

Source Link

For the last decade, the United States has maintained that it is a “Pacific power,” and multiple administrations have affirmed the importance of the vast Pacific Islands region to U.S. national security. Increased engagement with the Pacific, which began under the first Trump administration, 

 has broad bipartisan support as a security priority. As the first 100 days of the second Trump administration drew to an end, rhetoric coming out of the administration echoed this trend, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth visiting Guam and Hawaii on his first trip to the Indo-Pacific, during which he stressed the critical nature of Pacific U.S. territories at the “tip of America’s spear” of deterrence.

However, Pacific leaders have consistently stated that they look to actions, and not just words, as proof of a nation’s commitments. Here, recent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the pausing of U.S. foreign assistance, enacting tariffs on small and vulnerable island economies, and deprioritizing climate change—the top priority for the region—have had a decidedly negative impact.

Regardless of U.S. intent, the perception across the Pacific of the United States as a disinterested and mercurial partner undercuts the country’s ability to build meaningful and lasting partnerships in the Pacific and simultaneously opens space for China to displace U.S. influence and presence in this critical region.

In a region that has quietly become a stage for great power competition, this perception of U.S. disinterest not only opens new entry points for Beijing’s influence but also puts wind in the sails of a new narrative: that it is China, not the United States, that is the committed partner and protector of global rules and norms.

While it is too soon to understand the full implications of the United States’ recent actions, early signs in the Pacific suggest that the trajectory is counter to U.S. interests. Reversing this trend will require quick action, sincere engagement, and creative diplomacy.