Can Albanese claim ‘success’ with Trump? Beyond the banter, the vague commitments should be viewed with scepticism

By all the usual diplomatic measures, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s meeting with US President Donald Trump was a great success.

“Success” in a meeting with Trump is to avoid the ritual humiliation the president sometimes likes to inflict on his interlocutors. In that sense, Albanese and his team pulled off an impressive diplomatic feat.

While there was one awkward moment with Australia’s ambassador to the United States, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, on the scale of Trumpian possibilities, that was relatively minor.

Much of the media coverage has noted the laughter and ripples of relief that spread through the room as the moment was handled deftly by everyone involved.

There is much relief, too, that Albanese appears to have “confirmed” the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal will go ahead, despite the as-yet-unreleased Trump administration review of the agreement.

Albanese went into the White House meeting under considerable pressure to extract some kind of guarantee about the delivery of the Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the volatile president.

Albanese seems to have met those expectations: Trump waved away concerns about the United States’ commitment to deal, overriding the more cautious language of his secretary of the navy with a clear assurance to Albanese and the press pack: “Oh no, they’re getting them”.

Albanese also signed, in bold Trumpian Sharpie style, a critical minerals deal with the US president. This is being taken as reassurance the United States remains committed to its alliance with Australia – an alliance that, like the critical minerals deal, is framed largely as a question of “security”.

As is common with the Trump administration, however, much of the detail is unclear or a problem for the future.

The deal envisioned “unlocking” up to US$5 billion (A$7.7 billion) in private investment. There are already rumblings about what the Australian government will give away in the deal, and just what “slashing red tape” on project approvals might mean.

Trump’s words on AUKUS might be hollow

Symbolically, the meeting was a success. In substance, it revealed that the fundamentals of the relationship have not changed.

While much of the focus has been on Trump’s moment with Rudd and the ambassador’s future in the role, the exchange revealed a great deal more. Trump didn’t appear to remember who Rudd is, let alone the former prime minister’s previous criticisms.

While Rudd’s position matters a great deal to the Australian media, it is not of great concern to a president who has yet to confirm a counterpart to Rudd in Australia. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, appointed by the Biden administration, has not yet been replaced.

And while many reports suggest Trump has “confirmed” AUKUS, there is nothing to suggest this is either true or even possible.

Trump dismissed Navy Secretary John Phelan’s attempts to put some parameters around the deal after Phelan said “ambiguities” remain. Trump may well dismiss these ambiguities, but it is the navy that is handling much of the detail and the implementation of the deal itself.

And Trump may well make grand promises, but the legislation enabling the deal gives him a perfectly legitimate way to renege on the handover of the submarines, if doing so would undermine US capabilities or is deemed inconsistent with American interests. Nothing Trump promises changes that fundamental reality.

Is a full embrace of Trump wise?

That the media continues to treat Trump’s words with such credulity flies in the face of the evidence we have about a president who routinely changes his mind or reverses course. For a few hours in the White House, that reality was largely suspended.

Australia’s security alliance has generally been placed “above” domestic politics, transcending prime ministers and presidents and enjoying bipartisan support.

But as Albanese has hinted, drawing arbitrary lines between domestic affairs and foreign policy is, like the meeting with Trump itself, an exercise of symbolism over substance.

Albanese noted that Australia and the United States “have stood side by side for freedom and democracy”. Trump heaped praise on Australia, noting how much he likes the current prime minister. Albanese quipped he might use a clip of Trump saying that in his next election campaign, saying “I’ll use that in my 2028 ads!”.

It was an off-hand comment. But it may also reveal the blurring of boundaries between the domestic and the international: poll after poll suggests Australian voters are increasingly concerned about what the Trump administration is doing, both at home and abroad.

It is far from clear that a “warm, constructive” relationship with Trump would be well regarded by Labor’s base.

As Albanese met with Trump in the White House, demolition works had begun on the East Wing, in preparation for Trump’s new US$250 million (A$383 million) ballroom. The symbolism of that is troubling, to say the least, for a president who has mused about staying in power beyond his constitutional limits and is busy sending “Trump 2028” hats to his political enemies. He’s now demolishing part of the “people’s house” for his own vanities.

Perhaps it’s a good thing he likes Albanese. He may be around for a while yet.

Emma Shortis is director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.