Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

University of Okara

AUKUS, a landmark security agreement valued at approximately £176 billion (US$239 billion; A$368 billion), entails the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to Australia a significant development given that, aside from the United Kingdom, no other nation has previously been granted access to the United States’ nuclear propulsion technology. The arrangement is widely interpreted as a strategic countermeasure to the growing assertiveness of the People’s Republic of China in the Indo-Pacific region. Initially, the United States is expected to provide Australia with three second-hand Virginia-class submarines, with an option for two additional vessels, followed by the collaborative design and construction of a new class of nuclear-powered submarines incorporating technologies from all three-partner nations.

Despite the far-reaching implications of this agreement, the current U.S. administration has signaled its intent to re-evaluate the pact, in terms of both its strategic utility and the degree to which it adheres to American defense priorities. According to a senior U.S. defense official, the review is being conducted to ensure that “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” emphasizing operational readiness, the optimization of military resources, and equitable contributions from allies. This review is being spearheaded by Elbridge Colby, a prominent defense strategist who has previously expressed skepticism regarding the advisability of transferring such advanced capabilities to allies at a time when U.S. military assets are already under considerable strain.

The review emerges amidst growing pressure from the U.S. for its allies to increase their defense expenditures. The Biden administration has urged partner nations to allocate no less than 3% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense. While the United Kingdom has committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP by 2028 and aims to hit 3% in the subsequent parliamentary term, Australia’s defense budgetary commitments remain below Washington’s expectations. Despite Canberra’s assurances of increased spending, it has yet to pledge alignment with the 3.5% target advocated by U.S. defense officials.

Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles has sought to downplay concerns arising from the review, expressing confidence that the agreement will proceed as planned. In remarks to local media, Marles reaffirmed the strategic necessity of a long-range submarine capability for Australia, particularly given the country’s geographic positioning within the Indo-Pacific theater. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the existing blueprint, noting the political and strategic complexities that emerged following the cancellation of a prior submarine agreement with France in favor of AUKUS.

From the Australian perspective, the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines represents a transformative enhancement of its military capabilities. These platforms will allow the Australian Defense Force to project power over significantly greater distances and durations than is currently possible with its diesel-powered fleet. Furthermore, the pact enhances Australia’s capacity for strategic deterrence and grants access to elite defense technologies components often described in U.S. defense circles as the “crown jewels” of national security assets.

The review also draws attention to broader strategic concerns, particularly regarding the alignment of operational doctrines among the trilateral partners. Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh, a defense analyst at the American think tank Defense Priorities, has highlighted two core issues underpinning the U.S. reassessment: first, the existing constraints on America’s own submarine production capabilities, and second, the uncertainty surrounding how Australia would deploy these assets in the event of a regional conflict, notably one involving Taiwan. As such, the review may consider revising the partnership’s focus from direct submarine transfers toward broader technological cooperation in long-range strike capabilities.

Both Australia and the United Kingdom have characterized the review as a routine and expected development under a new U.S. administration. Official statements from both governments have emphasized continuity and mutual commitment to the strategic partnership. A UK defense spokesperson reaffirmed that AUKUS constitutes one of the most strategically consequential partnerships in recent decades, underscoring its significance for maintaining peace and stability in both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions.

Notably, any substantive shift in the AUKUS framework such as a delay or diminution in the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology would have considerable geopolitical ramifications. A U.S. withdrawal or significant recalibration of the agreement would likely be met with approbation from Beijing, which has consistently condemned AUKUS as a destabilizing force and a potential catalyst for a regional arms race. For China, the pact symbolizes the consolidation of a military bloc aimed explicitly at containing its rise.

From a broader geopolitical perspective, the review could lead to sustained or enhanced cooperation and help reinforce deeper technological and strategic collaboration among the countries. Conversely, any retreat from the pact could undermine perceptions of U.S. reliability among its allies and embolden adversarial actors in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific security environment.

By Qamar Bashir

It is one of the greatest ironies of the American political system that the President of the United States wields near-unchecked power on the international stage—able to bomb foreign nations, greenlight wars, broker ceasefires, and tip the global balance of power without even consulting Congress. Yet, when it comes to domestic policymaking—specifically, delivering on economic promises like tax reform or welfare restructuring—the same president often appears as powerless as a ceremonial figurehead.

President Donald J. Trump now faces this paradox head-on as his much-hyped “Big Beautiful Bill” stalls in the U.S. Senate. This sprawling legislative package—central to his campaign and populist economic vision—was supposed to be signed into law on July 4, 2025. But despite controlling the White House and a slim Senate majority, Trump faces intense resistance not from Democrats alone, but from inside his own party.

The bill, estimated at nearly $4 trillion, was introduced as a sweeping effort to reduce taxes, boost consumer income, strengthen border security, and overhaul federal entitlement spending. It includes generous income tax exemptions for military, veterans, police, and firefighters, as well as deductions on tips ($25,000) and overtime pay ($12,500) through 2028, part of Trump’s promise to “put more money in the hands of working Americans.”

But where would this money come from? Trump’s answer: tariffs. By taxing foreign imports, the bill aims to fund domestic tax cuts and infrastructure investments. In theory, it’s a bold nationalist formula: tax the world, enrich America. But critics—many of them conservative—say this strategy is deeply flawed.

One of the most vocal critics is Elon Musk, once Trump’s trusted ally and now his most formidable tech-world adversary. In a firestorm of posts on X, Musk slammed the bill as “insane,” “destructive,” and “political suicide,” arguing that it favors outdated industries at the cost of clean energy and future innovation. “It puts America in the fast lane to debt slavery,” Musk warned, pointing to projections that the bill will inflate the national deficit by $2.8 trillion by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Musk’s criticism cuts deep because it reflects growing unease within Trump’s own base. A recent NBC News poll shows that 40% of Republican voters now view reducing the national debt as their top priority, while a majority believe existing spending on programs like Medicaid must be preserved. These concerns have led GOP Senators like Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins to express opposition to various provisions of the bill—ranging from Medicaid cuts and the debt ceiling hike to restrictions on Planned Parenthood funding.

And therein lies Trump’s domestic dilemma: while the international stage presents him as a unilateral powerhouse—stopping wars in Pakistan and India, halting Iranian retaliation after the bombing of the Fordow nuclear facility, or reshaping global alliances—he finds himself cornered and constrained in the democratic trenches of Capitol Hill.

Even elements of Trump’s own “America First” coalition are rebelling. Farmers and agribusinesses recently forced the administration to roll back immigration-related work restrictions on undocumented workers in agriculture. Without these migrants, they warned, the entire U.S. food supply chain would collapse, bringing economic shockwaves across rural America and driving food prices through the roof. This public pressure forced Trump to carve out exceptions—a rare reversal that underscores how little space even the President has when facing economic realities and political mobilization.

Simultaneously, America’s political diversity is rising in ways Trump did not anticipate. The election of Zohran Mamdani—a young, South Asian, progressive voice—as Mayor of New York City marks a cultural and political counterpoint to Trumpism. A vocal critic of Israeli aggression in Gaza and a staunch advocate for Palestinian rights, Mamdani represents a rising class of elected officials who openly oppose Trump’s policies—from tax cuts for the rich to full-throated support for Netanyahu’s war machine.

Trump labeled Mamdani a “communist lunatic,” but the new mayor’s confident, smiling response reflected something deeper: a generational shift that even presidential authority cannot reverse. Mamdani has pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he ever visits New York—citing the International Criminal Court’s genocide charges—and has blasted Modi’s Gujarat massacre record. These bold declarations indicate just how much the grassroots of American politics is diverging from the executive narrative.

Back in Washington, Trump’s bill faces another challenge: the gutting of essential safety nets. Proposed Medicaid cuts, totaling hundreds of billions, would strike at the very heart of American welfare—affecting the elderly, disabled, veterans, and low-income families. The Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled against parts of the bill that tried to remove funding for gender-affirming care and limit coverage for undocumented immigrants. But the damage to public perception has been done.

And what about Social Security? While Trump promised to make its payouts tax-free, the bill also tightens eligibility and introduces new scrutiny provisions, leaving many fearing future erosion of benefits. This comes at a time when 67 million Americans—across class, race, and party lines—depend on Social Security as their financial lifeline.

Ironically, Trump’s economic record gives him some legitimacy. Inflation, which soared to nearly 8% under President Biden, has now stabilized at 2.4%–2.6% under Trump’s second term. That’s no small feat. However, if the price for that stabilization is a massive increase in the deficit, reduced healthcare access, and shrinking consumer protections, the political costs could outweigh the economic gains.

This complex reality is what Trump now faces: he campaigned on a promise to “raise incomes, cut taxes, and build America.” But the mechanisms to fulfill that promise—tariffs, spending cuts, and partisan loyalty—are faltering. He is now encountering what every president eventually faces: domestic politics is far messier than foreign policy.

The President may yet pull off a miracle and get the bill passed—perhaps with revisions, compromises, or brute-force pressure. But the real question is: what kind of America will emerge from this legislative gamble? One that is economically revitalized? Or one that is politically fractured, strategically weakened, and fiscally unbalanced?

Only time—and the Senate—will tell.

By Qamar Bashir
 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
 Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
 Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA