SINGAPORE — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday delivered the message to Asia that he’s been preaching to European allies, framing the relationship in more transactional terms while sidestepping the biggest military flashpoint in the region.
He called for “drama-free” ties in a major policy speech to Asian officials that made no mention of Taiwan, a rare omission for a Defense secretary about the self-governing island that China claims as its own. He instead called for Washington and Beijing to have a relationship “based on fairness and reciprocity.”
The speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue reinforced what Hegseth told European countries: Those who spend big on defense will be rewarded with a fast-track for weapons sales. But what he didn’t say was almost more telling. The silence on China’s menacing efforts in the South China Sea and Taiwan — the most contentious issue in the region — was a dramatic aboutface from years of precedent.
“We are changing the playbook,” Hegseth said. “The era of performative outrage is over, where Washington issues loud diplomatic protests that signal virtue, but do not project capabilities.”
Hegseth’s speech is a substantial departure from his June 2025 address to the conference, where he referred to Beijing repeatedly as “Communist China” and explicitly said that an invasion of Taiwan “would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world.”
But just weeks after the Trump administration paused a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan, Hegseth did not label China as “communist” or mention frequent Pentagon complaints about Beijing’s military buildup. This includes China’s efforts to build artificial islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea and its growing nuclear program.
He instead repeatedly said that no “hegemon” should lead in the region, including China and the United States.
The silence on Taiwan was perhaps the most telling. The last three Pentagon chiefs to attend, dating back to James Mattis, a Defense secretary in President Donald Trump’s first administration, all carefully referenced Taiwan in their remarks at the summit. The U.S. does not officially recognize the democratic island, but practices a policy of “strategic ambiguity” aimed at keeping China guessing about whether America would intervene to protect the island from attack.
But the Trump administration’s criticism of Beijing has become increasingly muted. The National Security Strategy last year removed China as America’s number-one threat. And the National Defense Strategy, produced by Hegseth’s top advisers, called for the U.S. to focus on diplomacy with Beijing and made no explicit reference to Taiwan.
Hegseth, in his speech, complimented defense buildups in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. But Hegseth drew questions about whether promises to reward big defense spenders with a fast-track for U.S. arms sales would hold up with transfers to Taiwan on pause.
“I fear some countries might underestimate the U.S. commitment,” Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said.
Hegseth did not address reasons for the pause. “Any decision about future Taiwan arms sales will rest with [Trump],” he said in response to an audience question.
But former officials insist that U.S. rhetoric does matter, particularly when it comes to Taiwan.
“The thing about speaking softly and carrying a big stick is that, at some point, you do have to speak,” said Chris Estep, a former U.S. defense official. “And in the case of Taiwan, saying all of the right things is just the start. You also have to do things that actually deter conflict.”
Trump said he talked at length to Chinese leader Xi Jinping during his May visit about U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, contradicting American policy dating back to the Reagan administration that the White House did not consult Beijing on arms transfers to Taipei.
Allies have been careful not to directly criticize China at the Singapore summit, particularly as America’s influence in the region appears in question.
Vietnamese President To Lam, in his Friday keynote address, gave a subtle nod to the troubling dynamics of shifting world powers.
The adjustment to global rules, he said, “cannot be achieved through coercion, imposition, threats of force, or creating faits accomplis.”
