Peter Hegseth’s inability to name an ASEAN country underscores the Trump administration’s broader indifference to Southeast Asia, favoring trade protectionism, military burden-shifting, and transactional diplomacy over sustained regional engagement.

The Asia-Pacific region began to exhibit signs of easing major geopolitical tensions in late 2024, but has started to heat up again following President Trump’s return to power in the White House. During the ‘easing’ period, although low-level disputes persisted in the vast region, in the South China Sea, and in cross-strait relations, the risk of a conflict involving regional heavyweights was not imminent.

The latest moves by Trump’s administration are a sharp pivot into new, seemingly accommodating foreign policy. Would less U.S. presence around the world embolden China to make aggressive moves into contested spaces?

Increased cooperation among Quad countries and partners in the Indo-Pacific region poses a challenge for Chinese diplomacy. The new U.S. president will not only inherit the security framework built under Joe Biden, but is likely to harden it even further. Thus, China has reason to worry that tensions will rise and that new hot spots will be created.

The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit highlights a crucial shift toward economic growth and rebuilding their relationship amid ongoing competition and territorial disputes. Ultimately, it’s imperative the two countries find ways to bolster trust, facilitate communication, and identify common ground moving forward.

The institutionalized quadrilateral dialogue is now a leading alliance network of the U.S., alongside its bilateral alliances in the Asia Pacific. But there are differences within the Quad that are larger with regard to global hot spots such as the Ukraine crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In the run-up to the 2024 election, we can see how domestic politics bring changes to U.S. foreign policy. Interest groups in crucial swing states will play an outsize role in U.S. policy formulation, and their influence will extend beyond their actual voting power.

The organization has become an instrument of U.S. hegemony that creates confrontation. The NATO Declaration’s statements about China are loaded with bias, stigma and provocation at a time when the world really needs a force for peace and stability.

The United States talks the talk but fails to walk the walk. It is angling to create a mini NATO parallel organization in the Asia-Pacific region by enlisting the Philippines and Japan. Its Cold War thinking only creates conflict and confrontation — hyping security threats and sabotaging peace and stability.

Amidst the India-Maldives dispute, the intricate dynamics of small island states emerge as pivotal players in the evolving maritime power play. As global powers vie for influence, the geopolitical spotlight shifts to these territories, whose strategic significance prompts a reassessment of traditional labels and fosters a newfound assertiveness in negotiating their roles in the international arena.