Pentagon begins critical review of $368 billion AUKUS submarine deal as former Australian prime ministers urge their country to use this opportunity to exit a “poorly conceived” agreement straining America’s shipbuilding capacity.
Key Takeaways
- The Pentagon has launched a 30-day review of the AUKUS submarine deal to ensure alignment with President Trump’s “America First” agenda.
- Former Australian Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull are urging Australia to use this review as an opportunity to exit the agreement.
- The deal, projected to cost Australia up to $368 billion by mid-2050s, faces criticism over affordability, practicality, and impact on US naval capabilities.
- Both the US and UK are experiencing shipbuilding delays and capacity issues that raise questions about their ability to fulfill commitments.
- The review is led by Elbridge Colby, a known skeptic of the AUKUS deal, who questions its benefits for the United States.
Trump Administration Launches Critical Review of Submarine Deal
The Defense Department has initiated a comprehensive 30-day review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. The review aims to assess whether the agreement, established under the Biden administration in 2021, aligns with President Trump’s “America First” priorities. Defense officials are examining the impact on America’s industrial base and naval capabilities, as the agreement would divert valuable submarine production resources to satisfy Australian needs during a time of increased global tensions, particularly with China.
“The US department of defense has announced a 30-day review of the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America first’ agenda,” a Pentagon official said, “and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs.” The Guardian
Former Australian Leaders Call for Exit Strategy
The Pentagon’s review has sparked calls from former Australian leaders to reconsider the agreement entirely. Former Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull have both criticized the deal as poorly conceived and financially burdensome. Keating, who has been a vocal critic of the agreement since its inception, suggests that the review might be “the moment Washington saves Australia from itself” from what he describes as “the most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian government.”
“Keating said that the review “might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself … from the most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian government”,” said The Guardian.
Financial and Practical Concerns Mount
The AUKUS deal, which includes provisions for the US to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia with the first delivery expected in 2032, faces mounting criticism regarding its practicality and financial viability. The agreement is projected to cost Australia up to $368 billion by the mid-2050s, raising serious questions about fiscal responsibility. While Australia has pledged $3 billion to modernize US shipyards for submarine production, critics argue this is insufficient given the strain already faced by American shipbuilding facilities.
“Turnbull, whose pre-existing submarine deal with French giant Naval was dramatically torn up in favour of the Aukus agreement in 2021, said Australia should “wake up” and review the agreement itself,” said The Guardian.
Strategic Implications for Regional Security
The potential collapse of the AUKUS deal could have far-reaching implications for security in the Indo-Pacific region. Australia’s growing concern over China’s increasing military strength has been a primary driver behind its pursuit of nuclear submarine capabilities. However, defense experts warn that without AUKUS, Australia would have no viable alternative for acquiring nuclear submarines, potentially leaving a significant gap in its defense capabilities at a time when regional tensions continue to rise.
“But the biggest loser if the deal were to collapse may be Australia, defense experts said: The country has no viable alternative in terms of its nuclear submarine capability even as Canberra has grown increasingly concerned about China’s growing military strength,” said Semafor.
Congressional Opposition to Review
The Pentagon’s review has sparked frustration among congressional Democrats, particularly those representing districts with major shipyards that stand to benefit from the AUKUS agreement. Critics of the review argue that abandoning the deal would damage America’s trustworthiness on the global stage and undermine strategic partnerships with key allies. Despite these concerns, the Trump administration appears committed to ensuring all international agreements serve American interests first, setting the stage for potential renegotiation of terms or complete withdrawal.
“To walk away from all the sunk costs invested by our two closest allies, Australia and the United Kingdom, will have far-reaching ramifications on our trustworthiness on the global stage,” said Politico.
