The Indo-Pacific Vision in Strategic Limbo: A Foreign Policy Case Study for the Trump Era
The Trump Administration’s Indo-Pacific security strategy is a case study in foreign policymaking under a non-unitary executive.
Having identified competition with China as a leading national security priority in its early months, disposed of the Obama Administration’s Rebalance to Asia, and begun the process of defining its ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ approach, the administration has made little subsequent progress towards developing it into a concrete strategy. While some modest efforts have been made to develop policy at the working level, the President himself has pursued a much narrower China approach, focused almost exclusively on punitive trade measures and North Korea. Moreover, the basic principles that motivate Indo-Pacific concept are clearly at odds with the President’s own instincts. As a result, two largely independent streams of China policy have emerged and are highly unlikely to be rationalized in the next two years.
This current disjuncture does not, however, doom the Indo-Pacific security strategy to history’s dustbin. Whether or not the moniker persists, the basic contours of the approach are likely to be adopted by a new administration and are largely consistent with broader U.S. objectives in the region. Far beyond the White House, a consensus has emerged in Washington that the United States and China will be increasingly competitive, and that a holistic American strategy is necessary. Any future strategy is likely to rely on allies and partners, emphasize democracies, seek to secure the First Island Chain and maritime Asia, and have ample room for participation by European partners. There will, however, remain many hurdles to full and successful implementation, including perennial American over-optimism about regional states’ alignment decisions and ability to commit resources, as well as the profound distrust that is likely to enshroud U.S. strategic leadership after Trump. Nonetheless, American allies and partners may think of the Indo-Pacific approach as one whose time is still likely to come; they should seek to develop it themselves until the United States is capable of resuming some form of regional leadership.
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
The Indo-Pacific Vision in Strategic Limbo: A Foreign Policy Case Study for the Trump Era
China’s Climate Leadership after Hormuz: How Should Europe Adjust?
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 offered an unplanned stress test of China’s approach to energy security, and China passed it far better than most expected. The episode demonstrated that the underlying risk of supply disruption is real, while validating a preference for resilience and resource security that has long underpinned Chinese energy and climate policy and has now been reinforced under the banner of building an “energy powerhouse.”
China as an ambivalent supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trading system
Amid rising trade tensions between Europe and China and broader uncertainty in the international rules-based trade regime, Beijing has worked to preserve and bolster the multilateral trading system while at the same time failing to reform the domestic policies that have served to undermine that same system.
Canada in the Indo-Pacific Sustaining the Pivot, Partnering with France
Since the launch of Canada’s inaugural Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) in November 2022, Ottawa has moved—with notable but uneven momentum—from the margins of regional engagement to a position of growing strategic visibility. The Strategy, backed by an initial $2.3 billion five-year investment, reflects a long-overdue recognition: Canada is a Pacific nation whose prosperity and security are inextricably linked to the stability of the world’s most economically and strategically consequential region.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.