‘AUKUS is better off under Donald Trump than it was under Joe Biden’: defence expert

AUKUS is in better hands with the Trump Administration than it was under Joe Biden and does not need a plan B, but Australia must accept there are risks to the program, the co-lead of the Defence Strategic Review says.

Peter Dean, head of the US Studies Centres’ defence program and instrumental in the 2023 evaluation, said commentary conflating Donald Trump’s decision to not give Australian steel and aluminium imports a tariff exemption and the tri-lateral security pact was unhelpful and unfounded.

“The two things are not related, and people trying to conflate the two are on the wrong track ... people are grasping for straws at the moment,” he told The Nightly.

“Trade policy is trade policy and defence and security policy is defence and security policy. The two are not necessarily connected.

“AUKUS doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything.”

He criticised calls for a submarine plan B, put forward this week by former defence chief Chris Barrie and submarine expert Peter Briggs – and rebuffed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles – as “not credible”.

“There is zero evidence that AUKUS is under any threat. In fact, the evidence so far is that AUKUS is better off under Donald Trump than it was under Joe Biden,” Professor Dean said, adding that there was an asterisk when it came to dealing with this Administration.

“If you look at the Trump Administration’s Pentagon plans and announcements they’ve made regarding the defence budget… Under President Trump’s plans, he’s put a premium on investing in the submarine industrial base and naval shipbuilding capabilities.”

In his joint congress address last week, Mr Trump pledged to open a new department of shipbuilding and introduce tax incentives to boost the military and defence industry commercial sector.

“That has a net overall positive effect on AUKUS … and that’s far more than Biden was ever willing to commit to,” Professor Dean said.

Under the AUKUS arrangement the US will sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class submarines from 2032.

But, given the US is only producing 1.2-1.3 Virginia-class submarines annually, well short of the 2.33 required to meet its AUKUS commitments, policy head of the US department of Defence Elbridge Colby last week raised concerns about the US industrial base’s ability to meet those commitments.

In his testimony to the Senate, he said the US should do “everything it can to make this work”, but US capability would come first.

“We just have to be careful as we try to produce an Australian capacity that we don’t end up in a time period where we are less than we would otherwise be,” he said.

Professor Dean said the reality of the situation presented two risks to the AUKUS program.

“The biggest risk is the US submarine industrial base doesn’t move fast enough, which would put the US in a position of questioning do we sell out of our own inventory,” he said.

“The other risk is the material nature of the President, he may ask for more money from us.”

Australia is already investing significant resources in the US submarine industry, having transferred the first $440 million (AUD $795) in late January of the US $3 billion it has committed.

Sam Roggeveen from the Lowy Institute said “something has got to give” if America’s shipbuilding capacity isn’t raised in time

“In those circumstances, if it’s a choice between building more submarines for the US and building more for Australia, I don’t believe this President or his successor is going to choose Australia,” he told The Nightly.

Under the deal, nine months before the transfer of the first boat goes ahead the president of the day – must certify it won’t diminish the US navy’s capability.

Even if Australia raises its defence spending, Mr Roggeveen said the decision to sell or not sell the submarines to Australia will depend on the US industrial base.

“We’re already making contributions,” he said.

“The people who I trust and rely on in this debate basically argue it won’t be enough. That increase in ship building capacity simply won’t meet the demand.”

Despite those warnings, the Government has distanced itself from suggestions it needs a plan- B. Admiral Barrie, who was CDF from 1998-2002 told the Nine Newspapers on Thursday one was needed because the US had become an unreliable ally under Mr Trump.

Rear admiral Briggs has been pushing for a plan B in part because of the US’ shipbuilding industry shortfalls.

But Mr Marles said the US “can be trusted” to see the deal through.

“Trump Republicans in America have been supportive of AUKUS. You don’t need a plan B … We are working with the United States, because AUKUS is in the strategic advantage of the United States,” he told Sky News on Thursday.

“It makes sense for the US to have an ally in Australia with this capability, but it makes sense to the US to have Australia supporting the US industrial base, which will give rise to a greater availability of US Virginia-class submarines for the US.

“That’s a point I made when I met with Secretary Hegseth. He completely understood and very much welcomed the contribution we were making.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also said the US could be trusted, but it was incumbent on the Prime Minister not to “stuff this up as well”.

“There can be no Plan B in relation to AUKUS. We need to make it successful,” he said.

“If it falls over on this Government’s watch, that would be a catastrophe because we need as an island nation, we need that nuclear sub capacity. It’s unimaginable that the Prime Minister could stuff this up as well.”

Mr Albanese said: “we are determined to make sure that AUKUS delivers what we need”.

But Australia is also facing pressure from the Trump Administration to increase its defence spending, with Mr Colby calling for “core ally” Canberra to lift its spending to at least three per cent of GDP.

“Australia is currently well below the three per cent level advocated for by NATO Secretary General Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China,” he said.

Australia is on track to spend 2.03 per cent of its output on defence spending in this financial year, about $56 billion. That will rise to 2.3 per cent by 2033-34 when Australia is slated to receive the first Virginia-class submarines.

The Government has spent an additional $50 billion in defence since coming to office.

Economist and senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute David Uren said if the Australian Government were to lift defence spending, the primary way would need to be through borrowing.

“If you want to, over a short period, increase the amount you’re spending by a meaningful amount – about $20 billion a year – then borrowing is the way to go. And down the track you’re going to need to raise taxes to pay for it,” he told The Nightly.

“I think that historic experience shows that very few countries succeed in financing a military build-up by cutting expenditure elsewhere … I don’t think you can finance a major national security priority by nips and tucks and cuts here and there.”