The Sustained Relevance of the Indo-Pacific and East Asia Under Trump 2.0
Dr. Anudeep Gujjeti
The re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States (US) has triggered widespread speculation about the direction of American foreign policy, particularly concerning the Indo-Pacific and East Asia. These regions gained strategic significance during Trump’s first term and continued to be a priority under the Biden administration. However, with Trump’s return to office, concerns have emerged regarding the extent of US commitment to regional security, especially in light of the administration’s heightened focus on other global flashpoints.
Since resuming office, President Trump has concentrated his foreign policy efforts on three key regions. The first is the US immediate neighbourhood, encompassing North America and Latin America. This focus aligns with Trump’s domestic priorities, particularly on immigration control and economic competition. His administration has sought to renegotiate trade agreements and strengthen border security, reinforcing a policy of economic nationalism.
The second area of emphasis has been the Middle East. The Trump administration has reintroduced plans to address the long-standing Israel-Palestine conflict. However, these proposals, widely perceived as favouring Israeli interests, have been met with resistance from Middle Eastern states. The administration’s approach, often unilateral in nature, has failed to gain traction among key regional actors, exacerbating tensions in the region.
Europe constitutes the third major focus of the administration, particularly regarding North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Trump has reiterated calls for increased defence spending by European allies, a stance that was a hallmark of his first term. More controversially, Trump has suggested the possibility of acquiring Greenland, a move that has alarmed NATO members states. Additionally, the recent US-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia over the Ukraine conflict, conducted without the presence of Ukraine or European nations, have raised concerns about the US bypassing not just its traditional allies but also the stakeholders of security of the European region, in shaping Europe’s security landscape.
These global engagements initially led to uncertainty regarding the US stance on the Indo-Pacific and East Asia. Given China’s increasingly assertive posture in the region, American partners feared that US’s commitment to regional stability might wane in favour of more immediate concerns elsewhere.
Reaffirmation of the Indo-Pacific Strategy
The reassurance came with a summit between Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and President Trump. The joint statement released following their meeting reaffirmed both nations commitment to a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” This doctrine, central to US and Japanese foreign policy in recent years, seeks to ensure the region remains governed by international law, free from coercion by revisionist powers. The statement also emphasized the importance of close cooperation with like-minded nations, including Australia, India, South Korea, and the Philippines.
The strategic framework outlined in the joint statement promotes “multi-layered and aligned cooperation” between states that share security interests in the Indo-Pacific. Key groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and trilateral arrangements, such as US-Japan-South Korea, Japan-US-Australia, and Philippines-US-Japan, were highlighted as essential components of regional security. By reaffirming these partnerships, the US sought to allay fears among Indo-Pacific nations that had integrated Indo-Pacific strategies into their national security frameworks.
Regional Security and the China Factor
The joint statement also explicitly opposed any unilateral attempts to alter the status quo in the East and South China Seas. In the bilateral communique under Trump 2.0, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was directly named in reference to “militarization” and “expansive” maritime claims. The statement reiterated that freedom of navigation and overflight must be upheld, rejecting China’s extensive claims and its militarization of artificial islands.
Equally significant was the explicit mention of Taiwan. Both the US and Japan reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait, supporting Taiwan’s participation in “international organizations”. The statement also underscored opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo, urging peaceful resolution of cross-strait tensions. This development signalled that Taiwan remains a critical factor in regional stability.
Following this declaration, the Office of the President of Taiwan issued a statement expressing gratitude for the firm support from Washington and Tokyo. This reassurance came at a time when concerns had been mounting in Taipei regarding the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy and its potential implications for Taiwan’s security.
The commitment to the Indo-Pacific was further emphasized at the Munich Security Conference 2025. In his address, US Vice President JD Vance stated that Europe must take greater responsibility for its security, enabling the US to “focus on some of our challenges in East Asia.” His remarks suggested a strategic recalibration, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a robust US presence in the Indo-Pacific.
Additionally, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, a prominent voice on foreign policy, reiterated that “core American interests” should “reign supreme” and identified the Indo-Pacific as the “biggest challenge” facing US strategic planning. These statements reinforced the administration’s prioritization of the region despite its engagements in other parts of the world.
While Trump’s renewed commitment to the Indo-Pacific has reassured allies, challenges remain. The administration’s transactional approach to alliances, demanding greater financial and military contributions from partners, could create friction, particularly if allies perceive US commitments as conditional rather than a continued support. Moreover, China’s response to the US-Japan joint statement remains a crucial factor. Beijing has historically reacted strongly to explicit challenges to its regional ambitions, and any escalatory measures from China could test the resilience of Indo-Pacific security frameworks.
Another aspect to watch is the extent of US economic engagement in the region. While security partnerships are being reinforced, economic cooperation, an equally important pillar of Indo-Pacific stability, requires sustained attention. The Biden administration had sought to strengthen trade and investment ties with regional partners through initiatives such as the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).” Whether the Trump administration will build on these efforts or pursue a more protectionist trade policy remains uncertain.
Despite initial concerns over the Trump administration’s foreign policy focus, the Indo-Pacific and East Asia have remained central to US strategic considerations. The reaffirmation of security commitments, particularly through the US-Japan summit and subsequent statements by senior officials, indicates that the region will continue to play a vital role in American foreign policy. However, sustained engagement, both in security and economic dimensions, will be necessary to ensure long-term stability in the Indo-Pacific.
Dr. Anudeep Gujjeti is Assistant Professor at the Center of Excellence for Geopolitics and International Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru.
