Elbridge Colby’s vision: blocking China
Elbridge Colby’s senate confirmation hearing in early March holds more important implications for US partners than most observers in Canberra, Wellington or Suva realise. As President Donald Trump’s nominee for under secretary of defence for policy—the Pentagon’s chief strategist—Colby gave testimony that is a window into the administration’s approach to China and what that means for allies and partners across Oceania.
Colby commands attention not as a partisan operator but as a genuine analytical thinker. As the chief architect of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, he orchestrated the United States’ pivot to Asia through changes to force posture, acquisition priorities and strategic focus. His 2021 book The Strategy of Denial has become required reading for defence planners. In it, Colby argues that the US must direct its military power to deny China hegemony over Asia, rather than pursue global primacy or retrenchment.
The vision he laid out before the Senate Armed Services Committee was neither the primacy-obsessed neoconservatism of the Bush era nor the strategic restraint and belt-tightening advocated by US progressives and libertarians. Instead, Colby argued for ‘prioritised engagement’—a strategy that recognises the limits of US power while refusing to abandon core commitments.
This ranking is important for Australia and Pacific island nations.
First, Colby’s confirmation suggests strategic prioritisation of the Indo-Pacific. Throughout the testimony, he stressed that China is ‘the biggest, most powerful rival we have faced in probably 150 years.’ While other theatres might command attention, Colby made clear that resources must flow to deter Beijing first. The unfunded $11 billion priority list from the US military’s Indo-Pacific Command is, in his words, a strategic failure that demands rectification.
Colby’s testimony also flashed warning signs for allies hoping Washington would shoulder the burden of regional security. His insistence that ‘we have a one-war military and change’ reflects a hard-nosed pragmatism—a stance that reinforces calls for allies to increase defence spending. These demands may prove challenging even for Australia, which has already committed to defence spending increases, provides key regional intelligence and offers the US military access to Australian ports and airfields. They are probably more challenging for smaller Pacific Island countries or other regional partners with limited resources.
Colby expressed reservations about AUKUS, despite describing Australia as ‘perhaps our closest ally in the world’ that has ‘been with us even in our less advisable wars’. His concern was that the arrangement could potentially reduce the US’s submarine availability during a crucial period.
This concern reflects a common Trump administration line that support for alliance commitments must not come at the expense of the US’s ability to deter China. This tension between alliance building and direct deterrence capability is not new. Colby has consistently emphasised re-assessment and re-organisation of alliances around the paramount goal of preventing Chinese hegemony.
Such an America First position creates both challenges and opportunities for Australia. The challenge lies in potential timeline slippage for submarine delivery; the opportunity comes from Colby’s desire to ‘do everything we can to make this work’ by revitalising the US’s industrial base to produce more submarines for the US and its allies. Australian defence planners understand this dual message from Washington, but Australian taxpayers also deserve an explanation from their government.
For Pacific island states caught between Washington and Beijing, Colby’s approach suggests more direct US engagement. When questioned about regional coalitions, he expressed scepticism of a ‘NATO-like alliance’ in the Indo-Pacific, preferring more tailored bilateral relationships. This points to a strategy of supporting critical nodes in the US’s defensive perimeter, rather than building expansive regional architectures. Colby argued in his book that the US should cultivate and strengthen capabilities among a ‘deny China’ coalition rather than pursue diffuse multilateral frameworks.
The issue underpinning Colby’s testimony is the mismatch between the US’s global commitments and its current military capabilities. He repeatedly invoked the Lippmann gap—a disparity between strategic ends and available means.
Colby presents prioritisation not as a choice but as a necessity, recognising that the US industrial base has atrophied while China’s has bloomed. Noting that China has ‘a shipbuilding capacity over 230 times that of the United States’, he underscored a US industrial deficit that must be addressed.
If confirmed, Colby would seek tailored deterrence approaches for specific contingencies rather than general regional dominance. He would also want better stewardship of US resources and stronger allied defence capabilities. He understands the industrial limitations and recognises that resources—including decisionmakers’ and strategists’ time and attention spans—directed toward one theatre necessarily come at the expense of another.
With Colby at the Pentagon’s strategic wheel, allies should expect more US demands. Australia, with its resources and strategic location, will face increased pressure to accelerate its defence buildup and repeated asks from the US to step into the breach. Pacific island states will need to navigate even more carefully between economic enticements and competing security guarantees that may come with more explicit conditions than in the past.