America's allies are facing a challenging dilemma: how much longer can they tolerate the abuse and unpredictability of the Trump administration's foreign policy? The strain on these long-standing partnerships is evident, and the question remains: will they continue to endure, or will they eventually drift away?
The Alliance Under Strain
Despite Trump's aggressive unilateralism and disparaging remarks towards U.S. allies, the core partnerships have endured. Countries like France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have not deviated significantly from their foreign relations doctrines or defense spending. Why? Because they fear that loosening ties could be more detrimental to their economic and security interests.
Trump's Second Term: A Sterner Test
Trump's disdain for allies has intensified in his second term. His controversial statements, from annexing Greenland to giving up on Ukraine, have sent shockwaves through the international community. Trump's demands for large investments, akin to bribes, have further strained these relationships. He seems to view alliances as a protection racket, and his actions suggest a shift towards reaping personal rewards.
The Biden Effect and Future Outlook
The election of Joe Biden offered a glimmer of hope for a return to traditional American liberal internationalism. However, Trump's reelection has proven that his foreign policy belligerence and quid pro quo approach are here to stay. The recently released National Security Strategy confirms this, indicating that future Republican leaders will likely continue this direction. Even a Democratic return to power may not guarantee reliability due to the influence of Trump-aligned Republicans.
Anxious Attachment: Allies' Response
U.S. allies have not defected, at least not yet. During Trump's second term, leaders from Japan and South Korea have signaled their desire to maintain good relations. However, their anxiety is palpable. Unlike in the past, these countries can no longer ignore the implications of a potentially unreliable U.S. support system in times of crisis.
Seeking Proximity, Not Confrontation
Rather than pushing Trump away, U.S. allies in East Asia have sought closer ties. Both Japan and South Korea have capitulated to Trump's investment demands, with Tokyo agreeing to a $500 billion investment in the U.S. Despite their proximity to regional threats, neither country has increased defense spending sufficiently to become independent of U.S. support. The U.S. military's deep integration with these countries' militaries continues, with joint drills ongoing.
The Need for Hedging
As we outlined in our 2022 essay, many countries ally with the U.S. due to its geographic distance, which reduces the likelihood of direct military threats. However, hope is not a sustainable strategy. The concerns surrounding Trump and U.S. foreign policy will eventually push allies to hedge their bets.
Protecting Against American Irresponsibility
Allies will seek to become more self-reliant in defense and infrastructure. This includes increasing domestic spending and pursuing a wider range of partnerships to reduce their dependence on the U.S. in times of conflict.
Changes on the Horizon
Some changes are already underway. Japan is expanding its missile force, and South Korea is considering building an aircraft carrier or pursuing nuclear weapons. In Europe, defense budgets are approaching an unprecedented 5% of GDP, which could significantly enhance the military capabilities of major economies like France, Germany, and Poland, allowing them to operate more independently as security providers.
Developing Logistical Capacity
A clear indicator of allies' hedging strategies will be the development of their own C4ISR systems (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), reducing their reliance on U.S. infrastructure. This is crucial as Trump has threatened to cut off U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine, and there are concerns about 'kill switches' in U.S.-made weapons systems.
Seeking Compromise with Adversaries
If allies feel that U.S. security guarantees are unreliable, they may be forced to seek compromise with U.S. adversaries. Small, vulnerable partners like Taiwan and South Korea could strike deals with China over territorial disputes or missile defenses. Similarly, if Trump abandons Ukraine, Kyiv's leaders may have to accept territorial losses and sue for peace.
The Cost of Hedging
Hedging will be challenging and costly. The deep entanglement of U.S. allies' militaries with the U.S. military makes it difficult to unwind this interoperability. Allies currently access logistics and intelligence systems at low cost from the U.S., which they would otherwise have to pay for themselves. Additionally, pursuing greater independence may require higher taxes, social spending cuts, and even conscription or nuclearization, all of which could be unsettling for citizens and lead to political backlash.
A Silver Lining for Washington?
Interestingly, Washington may not view its allies seeking alternatives as entirely negative. If allies become more autonomous in funding their security, the U.S. will achieve its long-standing goal of reducing free riding. Additionally, as allies gain more autonomy, Washington policymakers may recognize the benefits of a robust alliance network, providing access points for military and intelligence operations without bearing the entire financial burden.
A Prudent Step Forward
In an ideal world, the U.S. would remain the best security provider for its allies. However, the current situation is far from ideal, and the reliability of U.S. support under Trump or his followers is increasingly uncertain. Hoping for a return to traditional U.S. alliances is not a sustainable strategy. The prudent course of action is hedging. America's allies remain committed for now, but they are actively seeking alternative support systems.
