Amidst the recent controversy sparked by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s provocative remarks criticizing European democracies at the Munich Security Conference in February, a more grounded and pragmatic perspective emerged, offering a welcome shift from reckless rhetoric to strategic clarity.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a compelling and thoughtfully calibrated address at the Singapore International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday. In his speech, he explicitly condemned the military expansion and aggressive tactics of “Communist China,” highlighting its “massive buildup of military forces, gray zone operations, and hybrid warfare strategies.” Simultaneously, he underscored the significance of the United States’ regional alliances and repeatedly emphasized the importance of maintaining peace through strength, mentioning the word “peace” 27 times during his remarks.
“President Trump has always been a leader committed to peace, a man who champions peace, and a force for peace,” Hegseth proclaimed to the gathered defense and security officials from the Asia-Pacific region at Singapore’s Shangri-La Hotel. “However, peace must be preserved through strength, and together, we can ensure that peace endures.”
Throughout his speech, Hegseth consistently identified the Indo-Pacific as “our primary strategic theater,” marking a clear departure from the tone set by Vance. He praised European nations for their increased defense spending, suggesting that their Asian counterparts could learn from such commitments. “It was somewhat disconcerting that he used Europe as a benchmark for GDP-based defense expenditure,” remarked Micael Johansson, CEO of the Swedish defense manufacturer Saab. “Nevertheless, Hegseth’s speech was more collaborative and constructive than I anticipated.”
Hegseth articulated a clear shift in U.S. defense policy: Europe’s security responsibilities should primarily rest with European nations, while the United States concentrates its military resources on the Indo-Pacific region. This strategic focus is supported by a projected $1 trillion defense budget for the upcoming year-an increase of approximately 13% year-over-year-aimed at enhancing forward-deployed forces, assisting allies and partners in strengthening their defense capabilities, and revitalizing domestic defense industries, especially within allied countries.
“A resilient, determined, and capable network of allies and partners remains our most vital strategic asset,” Hegseth emphasized.
The speech also included sharp criticisms of China, with Hegseth accusing President Xi Jinping of planning to invade Taiwan by 2027. He warned that an attack on Taiwan-a self-governing island that split from mainland China after the civil war of 1945-49-could be imminent, raising alarms about regional stability and the potential for conflict.
This stance drew swift rebuke from Beijing, which issued a statement condemning Hegseth’s remarks as “vilification and baseless accusations designed to provoke discord.” China’s government also cautioned the U.S. against “playing with fire” over Taiwan, asserting that the issue is an “internal matter” for China.
Interestingly, China’s defense minister, Admiral Dong Jun, did not attend the summit for the first time since 2019. Rumors circulated that he was under investigation for corruption amid a broader purge of senior PLA officials, though recent reports suggest he has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
The Chinese delegation that participated responded dismissively to Hegseth’s accusations. Professor Da Wei, director of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, criticized Hegseth’s tone as “harsh and unconstructive,” questioning the U.S. stance given its own trade policies. “The U.S. is imposing high tariffs on regional countries, so how can they expect these nations to cooperate against another economic power?” he asked.
Indeed, the ongoing U.S.-China trade war loomed large over the summit. When asked about the recent reciprocal tariffs introduced in April, Hegseth quipped, “I prefer to focus on military strength rather than trade disputes, leaving economic negotiations to others.”
This exchange underscored the broader challenge facing U.S. policymakers: balancing strategic commitments with domestic political realities. While Hegseth’s reaffirmation of alliance-building and regional focus was broadly welcomed, it was tempered by the unpredictable nature of the current U.S. administration’s foreign policy, characterized by frequent shifts and policy reversals. Hegseth himself acknowledged this, stating, “My role is to develop and maintain strategic options for President Trump, not to make decisions on his behalf.”
Delegates at the summit were acutely aware that, more than under any previous U.S. administration, power increasingly resides in the hands of a single leader whose policies can change abruptly-embarrassing allies like Ukraine with sudden reversals, withdrawing from agreements with Iran, or fluctuating tariffs-creating a perception that U.S. commitments are less reliable and more transactional.
One European diplomat remarked, “It seems that U.S. policy is more driven by internal politics than by consistent strategic vision.” A defense officer from Bangladesh echoed this sentiment, observing, “It still feels like Trump is more focused on domestic issues than on global leadership.”
