If Anthony Albanese wants to avoid being berated by Donald Trump or JD Vance about how little Australia spends on defence, he should go to Washington with a list of proposals to expand alliance co-operation.
President Donald Trump has emerged the winner in the battle of the meetings with Anthony Albanese. By forcing the Prime Minister to come to the White House, Trump has ensured that the meeting will last longer than a brief bilateral “grip and grin” on the sidelines of the UN.
It is likely the encounter will involve at least three elements: a private discussion perhaps of around 90 minutes; a lunch, say of an hour’s duration; and finally a press availability – that dreaded engagement in the Oval Office with the media pack.
Moreover, Albanese is likely to find himself dealing with Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of the renamed Department of War Pete Hegseth. This is the pattern Trump has established in other bilateral meetings at the White House.
Albanese may not realise it but Trump has done him a favour. A meeting on the sidelines of the UN where Albanese made a major play of recognising the state of Palestine would not have ended well for the Australia-US bilateral relationship.
An Oval Office meeting will ensure that the focus can be on key aspects of the relationship. The Prime Minister’s choice is to go with a positive agenda, or don’t go at all.
Albanese would be well advised to lead with a natural Australian strength, which is the American perception that we are a strong and capable military ally.
Australia has a powerful brand in Washington. Without knowing much about us, Americans have an instinctively positive view of Australians. They see us as an open and friendly people, well-disposed to the US and like-minded on key strategic issues.
Albanese should do nothing to change that American mindset.
Americans think of Australia as a country that has fought alongside the US in all major conflicts since World War I.
As a senior Defence department official, I heard different versions of the same comment from many American military leaders, saying they liked to fight alongside Australians, that our military did not “sit on their packs” but would engage in military operations beyond the protected confines of a headquarters.
That perception of Australian military capability deeply matters.
An intelligent approach would be to play to this strength by making it clear to Trump that Australia remains America’s closest ally in the Pacific and that we are prepared to put substance to alliance rhetoric by stepping forward to do more in the common security interest.
If Albanese wants to avoid being berated by Trump or Vance about how little Australia spends on defence, the Prime Minister should go to Washington with a list of proposals to expand alliance co-operation.
First, he should make sure he can advise Trump that Australia is on track to remove the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company.
The Prime Minister promised in the election campaign that he would do this. We’re close to 150 days since the election and nothing has happened.
The lease on the Port of Darwin complicates the US capacity to increase its so-called rotational military presence in Australia’s Top End.
It’s a problem for Australia, too, because there is a plan to home-port several large amphibious vessels designed to support our army brigade in Darwin.
With the Port of Darwin issue addressed, Albanese could offer Trump the opportunity to increase the size of the US Marine Corps presence. Currently the marines rotate 2500 people into Darwin for six-month deployments. A marine expeditionary brigade has 16,000 personnel with significant naval and aviation firepower. Albanese should offer to host that level of marine presence.
Trump will look for assurance that Australia will carry its fair share of the costs associated with a larger marine presence. Frankly, this is the cheapest and fastest deterrence Australia can buy.
The US will be interested to take up the offer because American military strategy in the Pacific plans to disperse its forces from bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam and Hawaii.
Dispersed forces are harder to attack and create more opportunities to resist China’s increasingly aggressive military behaviour. A larger marine presence strengthens deterrence and reduces the risks of conflict.
President Trump understands that American military power in the Asia-Pacific is being challenged by China. The best way to avoid war is to ensure that America’s military posture is as strong as possible in the context of close alliances with Australia, Japan, South Korea and The Philippines.
Albanese seems to have little personal interest in defence and security, but he is surely aware of the increasing risk of conflict. The Prime Minister must know that Australia and the US have been quietly increasing military co-operation. He should overcome his distaste for publicly discussing this reality. He needs to explain to the Australian people what’s going on.
It’s not clear whether the Pentagon’s review of AUKUS will be completed by the time of the Oval Office meeting.
There is a significant risk that the US will conclude it is better to keep the Virginia-class attack submarines rather than provide them to Australia. America has an edge over China in undersea warfare technology. The Virginia boats are a significant factor in that American advantage.
To sustain the AUKUS deal, Albanese needs to become personally more engaged in driving real outcomes. His enthusiasm for AUKUS is muted at best.
The steps proposed here position Australia as a net contributor to security rather than just looking for American favours. If we want those Virginia subs, Albanese needs to make a stronger case for how that benefits the American interest as well as our own.
At least in private conversation Albanese should assure Trump that Australia will not sit out a conflict over Taiwan. Opting out would severely damage the alliance and our credibility in Asia.
Albanese needs to find a way to acknowledge that strategic reality. Our increasingly close military co-operation with the US should lend confidence in Washington that Australia remains a committed partner.
There are clearly senior individuals around Trump who think AUKUS is drifting. Albanese needs to make it clear that he will personally drive faster outcomes.
This should include an assurance that the location of a new east coast sub base will be decided soon, and that work on the base will begin.
A similar assurance needs to be given on establishing a nuclear waste storage facility.
Albanese might suggest to Trump that the two leaders jointly sponsor defence industry projects to rapidly deliver AUKUS pillar two technologies – including hypersonic weapons and autonomous systems – into the hands of our warfighters.
Delivering on these necessary projects also will drive higher defence spending.
We also may see an outcome around a joint plan for processing critical minerals. This is of high interest for the Trump administration, is critical for some weapons technology development and reduces a key dependency on China. That could lead to a significant uptick in American investment in Australia.
A well-designed deal on critical minerals could be the next major uplift in alliance co-operation.
If Albanese overrules his natural instincts and plays defence as a strength he will likely be able to cut a deal with Trump for tariff relief on pharmaceutical products. Trump is pragmatic and infinitely flexible unlike the ideological Albanese. This unlikely pairing has to work out how to shape outcomes that deliver for both countries.
Trump clearly has an ingrained sense of how to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of any individual he meets. If Albanese goes into this meeting looking unhappy and defensive, he’ll emerge the loser in a tough game of personalities.
With pre-planning and imagination Albanese could leave the White House in a stronger, more successful position. He needs to stress the positive, agree new areas for co-operation, promise the necessary funding and enthusiastically sell that message to Trump.
Peter Jennings is director of Strategic Analysis Australia and an adjunct fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. He was executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute from 2012 to 2022. He is a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department. This article was first published in The Australian.