With Donald Trump back in the White House, Washington is operating under a hard-nosed, transactional framework in which immediate returns rather than shared values measure alliances. For Australia, this signals a need to rethink its approach to the US relationship.
A key step would be to work with the United States in the extraction and processing of Australian critical minerals. By partnering with the US in this area, and freeing both countries from reliance on China, Australia can solidify its alliance position. It can raise itself further above the level of Ukraine, whose vast reserves of critical minerals (including rare earth elements) have become a mere bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington.
Trump’s objective with Ukraine—a minerals-for-security quid pro quo—is emblematic of the new US foreign policy doctrine, in which assistance is granted not on principle but in return for something tangible. Since Australia is a top-four global producer of rare-earth elements, with reserves critical to US defence and technology industries, a question arises: could Trump demand a similar deal from Australia?
Australia should not wait for the request to come but rather put forward a strategy, or series of proposals with the US and other partners such as Japan, that are in the interests of itself and global security.
Unlike Ukraine, which seeks military aid to fight an immediate existential threat, Australia has an alliance with the US that is still based on the shared strategic interest of regional stability and deterrence of aggression. Articles III and IV of the ANZUS Treaty oblige the parties to ‘act’ in response to threats against the other, but interpretation of that has always been uncertain.
Under Trump’s America First doctrine, coming to Australia’s aid could be accompanied by a compensating demand for greater access to Australia’s rare earth elements, lithium, cobalt and titanium.
Unlike Ukraine, however, Australia is not merely a resource supplier. As a regional power with strategic assets of immense military value to the US, it has a far stronger bargaining position.
Trump’s approach to alliances is brutally simple: nations must prove their worth in tangible, immediate terms. This is where Australia has an advantage. Beyond critical minerals, it provides the US with something far more valuable: strategic positioning and intelligence infrastructure. Robertson Barracks in Darwin hosts rotational US Marine deployments, bolstering US force posture in the Indo-Pacific without the cost or political sensitivity of permanent basing. Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is essential to US intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, providing real-time missile warning and electronic signals intelligence that the US cannot easily replicate elsewhere. Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station is one of the US’s primary links to its submarines, securing its undersea deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. Northwest Cape and Cocos Islands radar installations are vital to US Space Command, tracking adversary satellites and space debris amid China’s expanding orbital footprint.
If Trump sees Ukraine’s rare earths as leverage, Australia must ensure that its strategic assets are recognised as even more valuable. The risk lies in failing to assert this before any transactional demands are made.
Australia cannot afford to passively assume alliance obligations will hold under a leader who views diplomacy as a business process. Instead, Canberra must shape the terms of engagement, reinforcing why its role in the Indo-Pacific delivers more long-term value to the US than simple access to its minerals. This requires a more assertive, transactional approach that speaks Trump’s language of hard bargains while safeguarding Australia’s sovereignty.
Australia should pursue a strategic critical minerals agreement with the US that reduces both nations’ dependence on China’s dominance of rare earth supply chains and processing. A deal that prioritises joint investment in refining and manufacturing capacity, rather than just raw material supply, will strengthen sovereign capabilities, enhance supply chain resilience, and ensure long-term security for both economies.
This type of practical initiative would complement Canberra’s framing of the alliance as one of true partners, with emphasis on joint military infrastructure, intelligence cooperation and Indo-Pacific stability as assets of equal value worthy of security guarantees. Strengthening leverage before negotiations are forced to start by some third-party action is essential to ensuring the US recognises that Australia’s strategic geography, intelligence facilities and force integration are irreplaceable advantages.
Expanding resource partnerships with like-minded nations such as Japan and EU members will reduce dependency on any single power’s economic coercion tactics. Pre-emptively signalling non-negotiable red lines will reinforce that while Australia is willing to cooperate, access to sovereign resources cannot be dictated under duress.
For the US, Ukraine’s rare earths are a short-term geopolitical play. In contrast, Australia’s strategic positioning and alliance role are long-term necessities. As the Indo-Pacific becomes the central theatre for global competition, the US needs Pine Gap, RAAF Tindal, HMAS Stirling and Robertson Barracks. The difference between Ukraine and Australia lies not just in geography but in bargaining power. In Trump’s transactional world, Australia must ensure it negotiates from a position of strength, not subservience.
