Trump's speech was more campaign rhetoric than leadership

When it comes to a U.S. presidential speech given before lawmakers, at least in the past, and regardless of the content, one would expect a highly polished address drafted by a well-versed speechwriter.

Yet Donald Trump’s first address to a joint session of Congress since returning to power was disappointing at best and appalling at worst.

The president's address to Congress is one of the few times each year when the heads of all three branches of the U.S. government gather in the Capitol to hear the American leader speak. These speeches are meant to highlight shared values and unity within the diverse U.S. federal system. Historically, presidential addresses have reflected the president's thoughts on the nation's founding ideals, traditions and the importance of societal unity and reconciliation.

However, Trump doesn't seem to share that perspective. His speech, like the one eight years ago, was little more than domestic political propaganda. Much of it was a repeat of the same rhetoric from his 2024 campaign, with hardly anything new. The only exception was when he expressed gratitude for the letter from the president of Ukraine, which likely caught the attention of many viewers. But there was a prelude to this moment.

Just last week, an unusual exchange occurred at the White House. The U.S. president and vice president verbally criticized and abused the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for not showing enough gratitude for American support of his country in its war against Russia, and the signing of a mineral resources agreement was abruptly canceled. However, the exchange itself isn't a major issue. Such intimidation tactics are nothing new in Trump’s approach to diplomacy.

The real problem is that the testy exchange was televised. While it’s hard to say for certain, even if that disgraceful scene hadn’t been broadcast, I’m sure a similarly heated exchange would have taken place behind closed doors. The signing of the mineral resources agreement might have been canceled regardless. This likely led many to wonder if the U.S. is beginning to abandon Ukraine.

No surprise, after this tragic U.S.-Ukraine summit, I began receiving phone calls from foreign media asking a series of predictable questions: “How will Japan respond?” “It seems the U.S. is going to abandon Ukraine — hasn’t Japan been fearing this situation since 1945?” “Can Japan remain an ally of the U.S. after this?” and “Is Japan ultimately going to go nuclear?”

After answering their questions, I had a feeling this was due to the stereotypical view of Japan held by some foreign correspondents, particularly those specializing in Asia or senior journalists with extensive knowledge of Japan.

I am sure my comments did not meet their expectations, as I said the following:

Trump’s foreign policy is based on a “pacifism that avoids military intervention,” grounded in the belief that “only major powers can rebuild the international order.” This is not surprising as the current U.S. resembles the post-World War I U.S. The true challenger to U.S. hegemony now is China, not Russia or Iran. However, the U.S. can no longer fight two major wars simultaneously.

It could be argued that it’s time for the U.S. to end the futile war in Ukraine, even if it means making concessions to Russia, and leave European security to the Europeans. Similarly, prioritizing the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia over resolving the Palestinian issue would be a sound recommendation, with deterrence against Iran and stability in the Middle East left to the Middle Eastern countries.

Additionally, the U.S. should focus its remaining resources on maintaining the status quo in the Indo-Pacific by deterring China, but at the same time, leave Asian security to the Asians and avoid making a commitment to automatic military intervention to defend Taiwan.

The U.S. recognizes that the strategic value of Japan and U.S. military bases there is shifting, as China has become the biggest threat to the U.S. and it’s now impossible for the U.S. to deter the Asian giant on its own. Although the fear of being abandoned by the U.S. will never disappear, unlike 20 years ago, it would be disastrous for the U.S. to forsake countries like South Korea, Japan or the Philippines.

If that happened, it would signal the end of the U.S. as a Pacific power — a status it has held since the end of the 19th century — and a withdrawal to Guam and Hawaii. It's difficult to imagine the Trump administration would want that. In that sense, it’s likely the Europeans who fear being abandoned by the U.S. more — not necessarily the Japanese.

Furthermore, if Japan developed nuclear weapons, the political disadvantages — both internationally and domestically — would far outweigh any military benefits, making it an unrealistic option.

So to to the foreign observers of this country, I say this: The strategic environment surrounding Japan and the United States is shifting rapidly. I suggest we stop analyzing current Japan-U.S. relations solely through the lens of the past. While it’s true that the United States is changing with Trump’s reelection, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are also evolving and may no longer make the same strategic decisions they once did.