The Indo-Pacific Vision in Strategic Limbo: A Foreign Policy Case Study for the Trump Era
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/546a5/546a565512d1dcac06d9bbe0cbc025287d47e0b9" alt="couv_av102.jpg"
The Trump Administration’s Indo-Pacific security strategy is a case study in foreign policymaking under a non-unitary executive.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18b57/18b5702bf03be3de0589ff50f03b2f1962470191" alt="USS Antietam (CG 54) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) refuel at sea. (2018) © US Navy"
Having identified competition with China as a leading national security priority in its early months, disposed of the Obama Administration’s Rebalance to Asia, and begun the process of defining its ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ approach, the administration has made little subsequent progress towards developing it into a concrete strategy. While some modest efforts have been made to develop policy at the working level, the President himself has pursued a much narrower China approach, focused almost exclusively on punitive trade measures and North Korea. Moreover, the basic principles that motivate Indo-Pacific concept are clearly at odds with the President’s own instincts. As a result, two largely independent streams of China policy have emerged and are highly unlikely to be rationalized in the next two years.
This current disjuncture does not, however, doom the Indo-Pacific security strategy to history’s dustbin. Whether or not the moniker persists, the basic contours of the approach are likely to be adopted by a new administration and are largely consistent with broader U.S. objectives in the region. Far beyond the White House, a consensus has emerged in Washington that the United States and China will be increasingly competitive, and that a holistic American strategy is necessary. Any future strategy is likely to rely on allies and partners, emphasize democracies, seek to secure the First Island Chain and maritime Asia, and have ample room for participation by European partners. There will, however, remain many hurdles to full and successful implementation, including perennial American over-optimism about regional states’ alignment decisions and ability to commit resources, as well as the profound distrust that is likely to enshroud U.S. strategic leadership after Trump. Nonetheless, American allies and partners may think of the Indo-Pacific approach as one whose time is still likely to come; they should seek to develop it themselves until the United States is capable of resuming some form of regional leadership.
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
The Indo-Pacific Vision in Strategic Limbo: A Foreign Policy Case Study for the Trump Era
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesUnlocking India’s Energy Transition: Addressing Grid Flexibility Challenges and Solutions
India is rapidly scaling up its renewable energy (RE) capacity, adding 15–20 GW annually, but the ambitious goal of 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030 is at risk unless the pace accelerates.
The China-Russia Partnership and the Ukraine War: Aligned but not allied
China and Russia maintain a strategic partnership rooted in shared opposition to the U.S. and liberal democracies, but their relationship is shaped more by pragmatism than trust.
Technical Standards, Soft Connectivity and China’s Belt and Road: Towards greater convergence or fragmentation?
As the intensification of geopolitical competition points toward increased global fragmentation, the definition of technical standards for future markets and industries will play an important role in determining just how deep the fissures will run.
India’s Quest for Economic Emancipation from China
In October 2024, the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi initiated a thaw in relations between the two Asian powers. Has India's high level of economic dependence on China played an important role in bringing about this diplomatic shift?