Is the US playing cat and mouse ahead of expected Albanese-Trump talks?
- Written by Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
For the first time in memory, an Australian prime minister is approaching a prospective meeting with a US president with a distinct feeling of wariness.
Of course Anthony Albanese would deny it.
But it’s undeniable the government is relieved that Albanese’s coming trip (for which he leaves Friday) won’t feature a visit to Washington with a meeting in the Oval Office. Having seen what happened publicly to some other leaders in such encounters, Albanese has at least avoided any such risk. Instead, Albanese and President Donald Trump are expected to meet on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada.
Think about this. Normally, an Australian prime minister heading to North America would be deeply disappointed at not receiving an invitation to Washington, especially when he had not yet met the president face to face (although Albanese and Trump have had phone calls).
The non-Washington encounter is less hazardous but still highly unpredictable for Albanese.
It could go swimmingly. But that will depend on Trump’s mood on the day and what briefings he has had. And who can make sound predictions about any of that? Australian officials find the White House difficult to deal with or read.
Now, on the cusp of Albanese’s trip, a US review of AUKUS has become public.
The story appeared in the Financial Times[1], which quoted a Pentagon spokesperson saying the departmental review was to ensure “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda”. The spokesperson noted US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had “made clear his intent to ensure the [defence] department is focused on the Indo-Pacific region first and foremost”.
The review is to be led by the undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, who months ago flagged the US wanted Australia to be spending some 3% of GDP on defence. This was upped to 3.5% in a recent meeting between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Hegseth.
The Australian government is playing down the AUKUS review as being more or less routine. Marles said he has known about it for some time. He told Sky, “I am comfortable about it and I think it’s a pretty natural step for an incoming government to take and we’ll have an opportunity to engage with it”.
Nevertheless, the fact of the review and the timing of the report about it will turn the screws on Albanese over defence spending.
The prime minister makes two points on this – that Australia takes its own decisions, and that defence spending should be set on the basis of the capability needed rather than determined by a set percentage.
But there is a general view among experts that Australia will need to boost substantially its spending. Albanese won’t want to capitulate on the issue, but he will need some diplomatic lines. He could point out Australia has its next Strategic Defence Review in 2026. This is more an update on delivery than a fundamental review but could give an opportunity for a rethink.
On AUKUS, Albanese will want to reinforce its mutual benefits and importance. He canvassed AUKUS in his first call with Trump, after the presidential election.
The president may or may not be briefed on the latest attacks[2] on the pact by two former prime ministers, triggered by the review.
Paul Keating, an unrelenting critic of the agreement, said in a statement the AUKUS review “might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself”.
Malcolm Turnbull said[3] in a social media post that the United Kingdom and the United States are conducting reviews of AUKUS but “Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review”.
The Trump–Albanese conversation could be complicated by the Australian government’s imposition this week of sanctions on two hardline Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
This action, in concert with the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway, was immediately condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called for the sanctions to be withdrawn.
All this before we even get to the issue of tariffs, and Australia offering a deal on critical minerals to try to get some concessions.
There is a lot of scripting prepared before such meetings. Albanese will have his talking points down pat. But with Trump being an “off-script” man, it is not an occasion for which the PM can be confident ahead of time that he is fully prepared.
But Albanese has one safeguard, in domestic political terms. If things went pear-shaped Australians – who have scant regard for Trump – could be expected to blame the president rather than the prime minister.
References
- ^ Financial Times (www.ft.com)
- ^ latest attacks (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ said (x.com)
Authors: Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
