Trump’s Pentagon launches a critical review of the $368 billion AUKUS submarine deal that could scrap the entire agreement with Australia and the UK, potentially saving billions in taxpayer dollars while reshaping America’s defense priorities in the Indo-Pacific.
Key Takeaways
- The Pentagon has initiated a 30-day review of the AUKUS submarine agreement to ensure alignment with President Trump’s “America First” agenda and defense industrial base priorities.
- Former Australian Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull have both criticized the agreement as poorly conceived and financially unsustainable, suggesting Australia should use this opportunity to exit the pact.
- The deal, projected to cost Australia up to $368 billion by the mid-2050s, faces significant challenges including U.S. shipbuilding capacity constraints and potential impacts on America’s own naval capabilities.
- The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, a known skeptic of the AUKUS arrangement who questions its strategic benefits for the United States.
- Critics argue the review could undermine trust with allies, while supporters see it as a necessary reassessment of a massive financial commitment made by the previous administration.
America First: Reassessing a Massive Defense Commitment
The Pentagon’s announced 30-day review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal marks a significant moment in President Trump’s realignment of America’s global defense priorities. The comprehensive evaluation aims to determine whether the trilateral security pact—signed by the Biden administration in 2021—truly serves American interests and aligns with the current administration’s “America First” agenda. Defense officials are scrutinizing the agreement’s financial implications, logistical feasibility, and strategic value as part of a broader effort to ensure U.S. defense resources are optimally allocated to protect American interests rather than subsidizing foreign militaries.
“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.”
Australian Critics Welcome Opportunity to Exit “Poorly Conceived” Deal
The Pentagon’s review has been welcomed by several prominent Australian political figures, including former Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, who view the agreement as financially unsustainable and strategically questionable. Keating has been particularly vocal, describing AUKUS as the “most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian government.” His criticism focuses on both the astronomical cost—projected at $368 billion by mid-2050s—and the perceived rush in which the agreement was formed, suggesting Australia hastily committed to a plan that compromises its sovereignty while offering questionable strategic benefits.
“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 Paul Keating.
Turnbull, whose pre-existing submarine deal with French company Naval Group was abruptly canceled in favor of AUKUS, has called on Australia to conduct its own review of the agreement. His suggestion that Australia should “wake up” reflects growing concern among Australian defense experts about the practical feasibility of the plan, especially given significant delays and capacity constraints in both U.S. and UK submarine construction facilities. Former foreign minister Bob Carr has gone further, suggesting a mutual agreement to withdraw from AUKUS could actually strengthen the U.S.-Australia alliance by redirecting resources to more practical defense initiatives.
Industrial Capacity Concerns and Congressional Pushback
A central concern in the Pentagon’s review is whether America’s shipbuilding industry can actually fulfill the AUKUS commitments without compromising U.S. naval capabilities. The deal includes provisions for the U.S. to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia, with the first delivery expected in 2032. However, American shipyards are already struggling to meet the Navy’s own submarine production targets, raising serious questions about the feasibility of adding Australian orders to the production line. Australia has pledged $3 billion to modernize U.S. shipyards, but experts question whether this will be sufficient to overcome existing constraints.
“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 Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney.
The review has generated significant pushback from congressional Democrats, particularly those representing districts with major shipyards. Representatives have expressed concern that reconsidering AUKUS could damage relations with key allies and undermine America’s strategic position in the Indo-Pacific. However, defense experts close to the administration argue that America’s national security must take priority, especially given existing submarine production challenges and the massive financial commitments involved. The debate highlights the tension between maintaining alliance commitments and ensuring America’s defense industrial base serves U.S. interests first.
Strategic Implications for Indo-Pacific Security
The review occurs against the backdrop of rising Chinese military power in the Indo-Pacific, a fact that makes the potential collapse of AUKUS particularly concerning for Australia. Defense experts note that Australia lacks viable alternatives for acquiring nuclear submarine capabilities, leaving it potentially vulnerable should the agreement be terminated. The UK has already committed over $8 billion to enhance its submarine-building capacity specifically to support AUKUS, demonstrating significant sunk costs that would be lost if the deal collapses. These factors highlight the complex strategic calculations facing all three nations as they navigate the geopolitical implications of potentially revising or abandoning the agreement.
“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 Mathias Hammer.
Elbridge Colby, who leads the Pentagon review, has previously expressed skepticism about AUKUS, questioning whether the agreement offers sufficient benefits to the United States to justify its costs. While recognizing the importance of countering China’s influence in the region, Colby and other administration officials are examining whether alternative arrangements might better serve America’s strategic interests while reducing financial and industrial burdens. The review’s outcome will likely reshape not only the specific submarine agreement but potentially the broader approach to alliance management under President Trump’s renewed America First doctrine.
