Australia's Alliance with the U.S.: A Public Debate on the Future

A range of Australian foreign policy analysts, academics, and former officials are engaged in a public debate about the future of Australia's alliance with the United States. This discussion is driven by concerns over geopolitical instability, the potential return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, and polling indicating declining Australian public confidence in the alliance. While the Australian government maintains the U.S. is its closest strategic partner, commentators are proposing various strategies, from hedging and greater independence to a fundamental reassessment of the relationship.

Declining Public Confidence and Expert Concerns

Recent opinion polls show a shift in Australian public sentiment regarding the United States.

• A Lowy Institute poll from June 2025 found 72% of Australians had limited or no confidence in former President Donald Trump "to do the right thing" in world affairs.
• A November YouGov poll for The Australia Institute indicated only 8% of Australians believed the country "shares values" with modern America, with a plurality viewing the U.S. as an unreliable ally.
• A U.S. Study Centre poll cited in commentary showed 42% of Australians believed the alliance made Australia more secure in 2025, a reported 13-percentage-point drop from 2024.

Several prominent figures have voiced concerns. Former Labor foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr have questioned the alliance's future, with Evans stating Trump's America has "zero respect for international law, morality and the interests of its allies."

Foreign Minister Penny Wong has described the U.S. as "much more unpredictable" but affirms it remains Australia's most important security ally.

Proposals for Policy Reassessment and "Plan B"

Commentary from various experts outlines multiple proposals for adjusting Australian foreign and defense policy.

A common theme is the suggestion that Australia should "hedge" by developing other regional relationships to reduce strategic dependence on the U.S. Professor Bec Strating of La Trobe University stated that while Australia cannot practically abandon the alliance, it should build other partnerships. Proposals include:

• Significantly enhancing diplomatic and economic engagement within the Indo-Pacific region.
• Strengthening Australia's own defense capabilities and self-reliance.

Specific components of the alliance have been singled out for review.

• AUKUS: Some analysts, including Dr. Emma Shortis of The Australia Institute, have called for a parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS submarine pact, citing its high cost and concerns it reduces Australian sovereign decision-making. Other commentary has suggested terminating the agreement.
• U.S. Military Presence: Proposals have been made for greater Australian oversight of U.S. military bases on Australian soil, including access to intelligence and restrictions on their use. Some argue the necessity of certain bases should be reassessed.

Influenced by remarks from former Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on middle power cooperation, some argue for Australia to assert a more independent foreign policy.

• This involves respectfully declining U.S. proposals deemed unworkable and asserting Australia's own positions on international issues.
• It includes building regional networks with other middle powers around shared interests like climate action and public health.

Several sources argue for developing a more constructive relationship with China, focusing on areas like renewable energy and trade. They propose exploring Chinese diplomatic and development initiatives while maintaining a focus on protecting Australian interests in Southeast Asia.

Arguments for Maintaining and Adapting the Alliance

Other perspectives emphasize the continued importance of the U.S. alliance while adapting to new circumstances.

• Michael Fullilove of the Lowy Institute noted that while views of Trump are negative, support for the alliance itself remains robust, with polls showing eight out of 10 Australians consider it important for security.
• Scott Hargreaves of the Institute of Public Affairs argued that Australia cannot avoid the consequences of a potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific and that the alliance, combined with a credible Australian defense force, contributes to deterrence. He also suggested the alliance is valued by other Asia-Pacific countries.

Fullilove proposed a strategy of increased Australian self-reliance, strengthening regional partnerships, and actively working to maintain U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific by demonstrating Australia's value as an ally.

Structural and Perceptual Challenges

Analysis highlights deeper structural challenges in Australian foreign policy thinking.

• A review of Michael Wesley's book "Blind Spot" argues that Australia suffers from "strategic infantilisation," outsourcing its security thinking to the U.S. and making independent regional diplomacy difficult.
• This alignment, Wesley suggests, leads Southeast Asian nations to view Australia as an extension of American strategy, limiting its regional influence.
• The analysis identifies a "process of intensive and sustained socialisation" that aligns Australian policymakers with U.S. perspectives, creating a barrier to independent policy formulation.

Government Position and Potential Consequences

The Australian government, through Foreign Minister Penny Wong, maintains that the U.S. alliance is fundamental. However, commentators like Greens Senator David Shoebridge have called for an urgent government reassessment of the alliance to ensure it aligns with international law and Australian interests.

Analysts acknowledge that any significant move by Australia to distance itself from the U.S. could risk retaliatory actions, such as the withdrawal of support for military hardware. However, some argue that given the trade balance, a U.S. tariff war against Australia would also be detrimental to American interests.

The debate occurs in a context where, as Mark Carney stated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, "the old order is not coming back," prompting nations globally to reconsider their strategic positions.