US Think Tank's Asia Pullback Plan Alarms Allies, Analysts

A proposal circulating among American foreign policy circles has set off alarms across Asia. The Defense Priorities Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, has published a study calling for the United States to withdraw its military presence from the western Pacific and dissolve its mutual defense agreements with South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines. The author, Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow directing the foundation's military analysis, argues that American resources should be redirected toward defending the homeland and protecting economic interests—a goal she contends is better served by abandoning the "first island chain" that stretches from Okinawa through Taiwan to the Philippines.

Instead, Kavanagh proposes repositioning American forces along the "second island chain," a line running from eastern Japan through Guam, Palau, and Papua New Guinea. The logic, as she presents it, is straightforward: pulling back would make defending these positions easier and reduce the risk of catastrophic conflict with China. But the proposal contains a more pointed argument about Taiwan. Kavanagh notes that the United States has no formal obligation to defend Taiwan militarily. She goes further, suggesting that any armed clash over the island would cost America far more than it would gain, and therefore Washington should abandon what she calls "strategic ambiguity" in favor of an explicit policy of non-intervention if China moves against Taiwan.

The countries most affected by this proposal have not formally responded, but the reaction from regional security analysts has been swift and sharp. William Yang, a Taiwan-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, told Deutsche Welle that the conclusions would be received with shock. What deepens the concern, Yang noted, is that the Defense Priorities Foundation is known for isolationist positions and is believed to have connections to senior figures in the White House. The timing compounds the worry: President Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw troops from allied nations unless they meet his demands for increased defense spending or other concessions. Yang described the proposal as "very accommodating to China" and warned that if the White House were to embrace it, the consequences would be "earthquake-level."

Analysts across the region have outlined what they see as catastrophic second-order effects. A US withdrawal, they argue, would likely prompt China to move quickly on Taiwan, embolden North Korea to make greater demands on South Korea, and trigger a region-wide arms race. The nuclear non-proliferation framework that has held in Asia for decades could unravel. Garren Mulloy, an international relations professor at Daito Bunka University, called the study "one of the more cogent" versions of arguments Trump has made inconsistently for years—but he rejected its logic entirely. The report, he said, "sees the cost of everything and the value of nothing." He pointed out that withdrawing would leave a vacuum China and Russia would fill, and the United States would lose all influence over regional geopolitics, including the ability to shape norms, standards, and laws. He asked whether saving money this way was worth it, especially when Trump has promised to give that money away in tax cuts or election incentives.

Dan Pinkston, an international relations professor at Troy University's Seoul campus, called the plan "flawed and unrealistic." The entire premise, he said, contradicts how collective security has functioned for decades. He warned that those behind the proposal view America's alliances purely as burdens and costs—a view he called "too simplistic." By withdrawing, the United States would jeopardize trade relationships and forfeit influence over issues ranging from piracy and sanctions enforcement to cybercrime, smuggling, climate change, fisheries, and cross-border financial crime. Pinkston was blunt about the China question: "It's naive to believe that China is going to be benevolent if the US withdraws and will act in anyone else's best interests when it comes to the rule of law, peaceful settlements of territorial disputes or human rights."

Kavanagh's report attempts to address these concerns by arguing that China's path to regional dominance would be difficult, that threats to the American homeland from Asia are minimal, and that challenges to US economic interests are unlikely and self-deterring. But the weight of expert opinion runs against her. The proposal sits at the intersection of Trump's transactional approach to alliances and a broader isolationist impulse within his administration. While there is no indication the White House is about to adopt the foundation's recommendations, analysts note that the ideas align with principles the administration has already embraced. The question now is whether a think tank study can shift policy, or whether it simply articulates what decision-makers are already thinking.