AUKUS, Trump's White House, and the

​Future of International Agreements
by Adam Rangihana

AUKUS, Trump's White House, and the Future of International Agreements

AUKUS, Trump's White House, and the Future of International Agreements

​The AUKUS security pact, signed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, was heralded as a strategic alignment to counter the growing threat in the Indo-Pacific. However, the future of this trilateral agreement, particularly under a potential second Trump administration, is uncertain at best. With a history of undermining international agreements and tariffs aimed at punishing allies, a return to power by Donald Trump could see AUKUS and other critical deals jeopardized. This article explores how Trump's "America First" policy may corrupt US foreign relations, break existing agreements, and leave global alliances in disarray.

AUKUS: The Fragility of Trilateral Alliances

The AUKUS agreement—signed in September 2021—was a monumental step in reinforcing military ties between Australia, the US, and the UK. The cornerstone of the deal was Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, a move designed to bolster deterrence in the face of rising tensions with China in the Indo-Pacific. But as with most things under Donald Trump’s previous term in office, the deal was marked by unpredictability.
Trump’s handling of foreign agreements often boiled down to transactional relationships, treating allies as if their importance was tied solely to what they could offer the United States. In his first term, Trump didn’t hesitate to question longstanding alliances, pulling out of international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. While the Trump White House ultimately gave some lip service to AUKUS, Trump’s stance on military spending, foreign policy, and tariffs made it clear that international agreements would always be subject to the shifting winds of his personal agenda.
With reports of Trump avoiding a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Albanese in 2024, a worrisome precedent is being set. This diplomatic snub, coupled with a future "America First" administration, could very well lead to a re-negotiation or outright cancellation of the nuclear submarine deal. Unlike his predecessors, Trump’s unpredictability raises serious questions about whether any deals—no matter how strategic or beneficial—are safe under his leadership.

Trump’s “America First” and Global Tariffs: A History of Broken Agreements

Trump’s foreign policy record is littered with broken agreements, particularly when it comes to trade. His administration’s use of tariffs against China and Europe, as well as his threats to pull out of NATO, set the stage for his “America First” mantra—a philosophy rooted in transactional diplomacy. These moves were not just isolated incidents; they sent shockwaves through the global community, demonstrating that the United States, under Trump, could unilaterally abandon agreements if they didn’t serve immediate national interests.
One of the most significant examples of this came in the form of Trump's trade war with China, in which tariffs on billions of dollars of Chinese goods were imposed with little regard for the long-term effects on global trade relationships. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the trade war cost the US economy billions of dollars, while harming global supply chains and inciting retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, and the European Union. These actions essentially broke agreements that had been negotiated over decades, replacing them with ad hoc policies that ultimately left American allies scrambling.
In addition, Trump’s imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs on allies, including Canada, the European Union, and Mexico, under the guise of national security, only served to deepen fractures. These tariffs, while aimed at strengthening US manufacturing, were condemned by economists who warned that they could lead to higher prices and loss of trade credibility. For Australia, these tariff actions underscored Trump's willingness to disregard bilateral agreements and pursue aggressive economic protectionism, something that raises alarm for the future of AUKUS.

How AUKUS Could Be Affected Under Trump’s Leadership

If Trump returns to the White House, AUKUS is likely to become one of the first international deals to feel the strain. The nature of Trump's approach to foreign policy—marked by erratic decision-making and a lack of long-term consistency—suggests that Australia may not be guaranteed the nuclear-powered submarines promised under the agreement. Trump has long prioritized policies that are more about economic self-interest than maintaining global alliances. Therefore, the US may demand that Australia contribute even more financially, potentially causing further delays or undermining the timeline for receiving the promised submarines.
As former trade agreements have demonstrated, Trump is not one to hesitate in renegotiating or abandoning deals if they do not align with his immediate vision. The question remains: what will Australia do if Trump’s White House demands an altered AUKUS deal—one that puts even more strain on Australia's defense budget, security commitments, and long-term strategic stability? Will the Australian government be able to stand firm in the face of increasing pressure, or will the pact be compromised?

Lessons from History: The Breakdown of Past Agreements

Trump’s administration didn’t just impact trade deals; it also set a dangerous precedent for breaking military and defense agreements. Perhaps one of the most telling examples of this was his decision to unilaterally withdraw US forces from Syria in 2019. This move not only undermined US allies in the region but also signaled to the international community that America, under Trump, could reverse foreign policy decisions at a whim. Similarly, Trump’s abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) left the US isolated, with its European allies scrambling to save what remained of the agreement.
This pattern of renegotiation and abandonment of agreements echoes the broader risks associated with a Trump-led foreign policy. The consequences of such actions extend far beyond the deals themselves. For Australia, which is already investing billions in defense infrastructure under the assumption that the AUKUS agreement will be honored, a Trump White House could undermine that investment, leaving the country without the promised strategic advantage.

The UK: How AUKUS Plays into Britain’s Global Ambitions

For the United Kingdom, AUKUS is much more than just a submarine deal. It represents a significant opportunity to expand its defense industry and reinforce its global position post-Brexit. The UK is poised to build several SSN-AUKUS boats in collaboration with the US, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs. This provides a direct economic benefit to the UK and solidifies its role as a leader in advanced military technology.
However, even the UK’s involvement in AUKUS is not free from Trump’s disruptive style of diplomacy. Should Trump return to office, the UK's commitment to AUKUS could be questioned, particularly if Trump insists on re-assessing US-UK trade agreements or even demanding more financial contributions from the UK to sustain military production. Britain’s post-Brexit strategy has been focused on strengthening its relationships with global powers, and any instability in US foreign policy under Trump would certainly complicate these plans.

Conclusion: The Unpredictable Future of AUKUS and Global Agreements

​Ultimately, the AUKUS pact is at the mercy of global political dynamics, with the US under Trump standing at the epicenter of this uncertainty. History has shown that agreements signed under the Trump administration—whether trade deals or military alliances—can be undone or rewritten without much notice. For Australia, this means that while the AUKUS deal may seem secure in the short term, its future remains deeply uncertain, especially if Trump returns to power.
As we've seen with previous tariffs and broken agreements, Trump's leadership could undermine years of diplomatic effort, casting doubt on the reliability of the United States as an ally. Whether AUKUS can survive a second Trump presidency—or whether it will become yet another example of US foreign policy driven by personal and economic interests—remains to be seen.
The lesson is clear: international agreements, particularly those of a strategic and long-term nature, are increasingly vulnerable to the whims of an unpredictable administration. Australia's commitment to AUKUS, and its defense industry investments, could be the first casualties of a policy shift that promises more instability in the years to come.