In a stark warning that echoes the transactional diplomacy of the Trump era, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has told Asian allies they must increase defence spending or face a potential American pivot away from the region. Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Hegseth framed the demand as a necessary recalibration of burden-sharing, arguing that the US cannot continue to underwrite the security of wealthy nations that fail to invest adequately in their own defence. The ultimatum, which caught many allies off guard, signals a hardening of Washington's posture towards longstanding partnerships in Asia and raises profound questions about the future of the US-led security architecture in the Indo-Pacific.
Hegseth, a former Fox News host and veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is known for his blunt, sometimes confrontational style. He did not disappoint. "The American taxpayer cannot and should not bear the primary burden for European and Asian defence indefinitely," he said. "Our partners must step up, not just in rhetoric but in real resources. If they don't, we will recalibrate our strategic priorities accordingly." The comments drew immediate criticism from several Asian delegates, who pointed to existing commitments under the US alliance system. Japan, South Korea and Australia already host tens of thousands of US troops and contribute billions to joint exercises and infrastructure.
The timing of the demand is particularly sensitive. China has been rapidly modernising its military, expanding its influence across the South China Sea and increasing pressure on Taiwan. North Korea continues to advance its nuclear and missile programmes. Against this backdrop, a perceived wavering of US commitment could embolden adversaries and destabilise the region. Hegseth attempted to reassure allies that the US remains a steadfast partner, but his emphasis on financial contributions suggests a more conditional approach. "We are not leaving," he said. "But we are asking, what are you bringing to the table?"
The warning echoes similar demands made to NATO allies under President Trump, who frequently complained that European members were freeloading on American defence. Many NATO countries have since increased spending, though tensions remain. Hegseth's speech suggests the template may now be applied to Asia. This realpolitik calculus fits a wider trend in US foreign policy under the Biden administration, which has sought to repair alliances while simultaneously pushing for greater burden-sharing. Hegseth's framing, however, moves beyond polite diplomatic nudging to explicit conditionality.
Critics argue that such ultimatums undermine trust and solidarity, the very foundations of alliance systems. They also ignore the contributions that Asian allies already make in non-financial terms: hosting US bases, providing logistical support and committing troops to joint operations. South Korea and Japan, for example, bear a large portion of the cost of stationing US forces on their soil. Japan recently announced a significant boost in its defence budget, aiming to reach 2% of GDP by 2027. Hegseth's demand for more feels like moving the goalposts.
From a technology perspective, the debate is also about digital sovereignty and cyber defence. As militaries become more networked and reliant on AI, cloud computing and quantum technologies, the cost of maintaining interoperability and security grows. Allies must invest not only in hardware but in resilient cyber infrastructure to protect against sophisticated adversaries like China and Russia. The US cannot afford to be the sole guarantor of digital security across the region. Hegseth's insistence on spending may partly reflect a desire to see allies take more responsibility for their own cyber defences, an area where many remain vulnerable.
Yet the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy looms. If allies perceive the US as an unreliable partner, they may hedge by diversifying their security relationships, potentially drawing closer to China for economic reasons or seeking alternative security guarantees from other powers. The region's history is littered with examples of misaligned incentives and security dilemmas. Hegseth's blunt message may be intended to shock allies into action, but it could also fracture the very alliances he seeks to strengthen.
For now, the ball is in Asia's court. The question is whether they will meet Hegseth's challenge or call his bluff. The answer will shape the security landscape of the Indo-Pacific for decades to come.
