- The Asia-Pacific region is a ‘top military priority’ for the Trump administration, says US defense analyst Shaun McDougall
- ‘No guarantee’ that Russia or China would go for the defense spending cuts proposed by Trump, says McDougall
ISTANBUL
President Donald Trump’s unexpected proposal to initiate talks with China and Russia to halve the military budgets of all three countries and reduce their nuclear stockpiles has sparked widespread debate about the feasibility of such a move and the potential ramifications for US defense strategy.
While Russian President Vladimir Putin last week expressed Moscow’s willingness to engage in discussions with Washington on the issue, China has taken a firmer stance, urging to lead from the front and “set an example.”
Analysts, however, remain skeptical about the viability of Trump’s proposal, particularly in light of the US defense establishment’s long-standing commitments to global security and deterrence.
“Trump surprised a lot of people when he first announced he would be willing to cut the defense budget in half. This stance contradicts his presidential campaign platform and is not supported by the rest of his party,” said Shaun McDougall, a US defense budget analyst with Forecast International.
While McDougall does not expect drastic cuts to US defense spending in the near future, he believes the proposal could open the door to new arms control agreements between Washington, Moscow, and possibly Beijing.
He pointed out that Russia’s defense spending has more than doubled since the start of the war with Ukraine, stressing that even if Moscow were to agree to a reduction, “it would still be spending more than it was before the war started.”
For the US, he believes reducing military expenditure in that scenario would not make strategic sense. “There’s also no guarantee that Russia or China would follow through on spending reductions. They could potentially use hidden budget accounts to continue higher levels of spending. In China, for example, it’s believed that their military spending is much higher than its publicly stated figure.”
Another major obstacle to Trump’s proposal, he said, is Congressional approval.
“Trump’s Republican Party is actively working to increase the defense budget right now. Several key Republican lawmakers who oversee defense committees in Congress argue that the US should be raising its defense budget to at least $1 trillion. It would be hard for Trump to convince them to go the opposite direction and reduce spending by such a large amount.”
McDougall also pointed out Trump’s history of making bold statements that sometimes lack detailed follow-up plans. He suggested that the budget reduction proposal may be more of an “exaggeration” rather than a fully developed policy initiative.
In addition to the broad defense budget reduction proposal, the Trump administration has also directed the Pentagon to identify specific areas for spending cuts. The proposal calls for sweeping reductions across all military branches while reinvesting $50 billion into key defense priorities.
McDougall explained that it is common for new administrations to review military budgets and make changes that align with their priorities.
“Trump’s proposal for every service branch to identify 8% worth of cuts is extensive and will likely result in some significant changes to acquisition programs, inventories, and personnel,” he said.
“Congress will still have to approve his recommendations, and lawmakers often protect programs that benefit their constituents. So, it’s unclear if all of the reductions will go through.”
What are Trump’s defense priorities?
Trump’s priorities, analysts say, now include increasing border security and enhancing the country’s defenses.
“The Trump administration is first and foremost prioritizing homeland defense, specifically border security and its plans for an ‘Iron Dome’ to protect the US,” Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Anadolu.
“Second, it is focused on hemispheric security, which we’ve seen with its emphasis on acquiring Greenland and vow to seize control of the Panama Canal. Third, it is concerned about the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific.”
McDougall noted that Trump has already deployed additional troops to the US-Mexico border, though their current role is primarily supportive rather than direct enforcement.
“His administration also designated drug cartels as terrorist organizations, and there have been reports of US surveillance drones and aircraft being used to collect intelligence on the cartels,” he said.
However, he added, it remains unclear if the administration will take direct military action against the cartels.
The Iron Dome program, according to McDougall, is particularly important to Trump: “The military is already seeking information from companies about their ability to contribute. This program potentially represents a significant expansion of investment in satellites, sensors, missile interceptors, and directed energy technologies.”
McDougall believes the Trump administration is pursuing a strategy of “peace through strength,” aimed at deterring adversaries through superior military capabilities rather than direct engagement.
“Trump has spoken out against US involvement in foreign conflicts, which again points to a reliance on deterrence rather than entering conflicts,” he said.
“He wants the military to focus solely on its warfighting capabilities, so the administration has begun eliminating efforts like diversity programs that he doesn’t think contribute to that warfighting mentality.”
Asia-Pacific, Europe, and Israel
According to McDougall, the Asia-Pacific region is a “top military priority” for the Trump administration.
This was also highlighted during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Washington, he said, when the two nations reaffirmed their defense cooperation through a new 10-year framework, expanding military equipment sales, and increased co-production agreements.
Grieco pointed out that while Trump has signaled that he wants to cut “some sort of deal with China … it isn’t clear that Beijing is interested in such a deal.”
“Chinese leaders are much better prepared for Trump 2.0, and they are, therefore, likely to respond assertively to Trump’s policy actions. More than likely, US-Chinese relations will continue on a downward trajectory,” she said.
Regarding Ukraine, McDougall said: “Trump has tried to turn Ukraine aid into a transaction where the US gets some kind of benefit – currently represented by the mineral deal now being discussed.”
For Europe and NATO, he said Trump has ramped up his rhetoric to beyond the level of his first term.
As things stand, it is “unclear if Trump would use the US military to defend a NATO ally, and the fact we see foreign leaders … echoing those concerns is a significant shift from decades of stable relations among NATO members,” he said.
Analyst Glenn Carle believes Trump “will abandon Europe as he views it as exploiting the US, not pulling its own weight, and being weak.”
Grieco offered a similar view, saying that “Trump is not a fan of NATO.”
“He is highly suspicious of the alliance, which he views as a ‘bad deal’ for Americans,” she said.
Even if NATO members agree to increase their defense spending, there is a growing possibility that Trump “will view it as too little, too late,” said the analyst.
“There is a very good chance that US military forces in Europe will be significantly drawn down over the course of his presidency,” Grieco added.
In contrast to his stance on NATO and Ukraine, Trump has shown unwavering support for Israel, with his administration approving potential military sales to Israel worth $3 billion, which include munitions, guidance kits, and Caterpillar D9 bulldozers.
“He (Trump) is hostile to Muslims and Arabs, though he will formally deny it, and views Israel as deserving of support,” Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer, told Anadolu.
“He will probably continue providing aid to Israel, and give it a free hand to do what it wants to Gaza and the West Bank, against Iran and Yemen.”
McDougall also believes that ties between the US and Israel will grow closer under Trump.
“The Trump administration likely won’t have some of the reservations about military aid that we saw during the Biden administration over the situation in Gaza,” he said.
