US Think Tank Proposal to Withdraw Troops from Western Pacific Sparks Ally Anxiety

A recent study by the Defense Priorities Foundation, a US right-of-center think tank, has ignited concerns among America’s Indo-Pacific allies by recommending a major reduction of US military presence in the western Pacific. The report, authored by Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at the foundation, advocates for Washington to narrow its defense commitments in the region.

Kavanagh’s proposal suggests the United States should terminate mutual defense alliances with four key partners: South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines. Instead, the strategy argues that US security priorities should focus on homeland defense and protecting critical trade routes. To achieve this, US forces would retreat from the “first island chain”—a strategic arc stretching from Okinawa through Taiwan to the Philippines—and relocate to the “second island chain,” which includes Guam, Palau, and areas near Papua New Guinea.

The report argues that consolidating positions further west would make them easier to defend and lower the probability of a catastrophic conflict with Beijing. Regarding Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province destined for reunification, Kavanagh noted that the US has no formal treaty obligation to intervene. She described the potential cost of such a clash as far outweighing any benefits, urging a shift from “strategic ambiguity” to a clear policy of non-intervention in the event of military confrontation.

William Yang, a security analyst at the International Crisis Group based in Taiwan, told DW that while no official comments had been received from the named countries, the proposals would likely be met with shock. He highlighted that the Defense Priorities Foundation is known for its isolationist stance and is rumored to have connections with senior White House decision-makers. Yang pointed out that President Donald Trump has previously threatened to withdraw troops from allied nations if demands for increased payments or concessions were not met, describing the report’s agenda as “very accommodating to China.”

Although there is no indication the White House plans to adopt these specific recommendations, analysts warn the consequences could be severe if they gain traction. Garren Mulloy, an international relations professor at Daito Bunka University, criticized the strategy as valuing cost savings over strategic influence. He argued that a US withdrawal would create a power void filled by China and Russia, depriving Washington of any ability to shape regional norms or laws. “Is this worth saving money for that Trump would give away in a tax cut or election bribe?” Mulloy asked, labeling the approach a dangerous short-term vision.

Dan Pinkston, a professor at Troy University’s Seoul campus, echoed these sentiments, calling the plan “flawed and unrealistic.” He warned that moving beyond the second island chain toward the US mainland could become the next step in such an isolationist framework. Pinkston emphasized that allies are viewed simplistically as burdens, ignoring the extensive cooperative security benefits the US currently enjoys, from combating piracy and cybercrime to addressing climate change and smuggling.

Many experts caution that retreating from regional security commitments would likely embolden China to accelerate moves against Taiwan and prompt nuclear-armed North Korea to make greater demands on South Korea. The anticipated result would be a surge in regional defense spending and a breakdown of non-proliferation efforts. Kavanagh dismissed these fears, asserting that China’s path to hegemony would be difficult and that threats to US economic interests are self-deterring. However, for allies across the Indo-Pacific, the proposal represents a significant and alarming shift in US strategic posture.