Trump’s Endorsement of Xi’s Strategic Stability Framework Threatens Southeast Asia’s Middle Powers

As Southeast Asia’s middle powers brace for the geopolitical ripple effects of a U.S.-China détente, analysts warn that President Donald Trump’s acceptance of Beijing’s “constructive strategic stability” framework during his recent summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping could undermine regional security architectures that have long relied on American counterbalance. While the White House has framed the agreement as a step toward stabilizing superpower competition, diplomats and defense experts in Jakarta, Manila, and Tokyo are increasingly concerned that the framework—centered on mutual restraint in military and economic spheres—may leave smaller nations vulnerable to coercive pressure from Beijing.

The summit, held in Beijing on May 15–16, marked Trump’s first major diplomatic engagement since returning to office in January 2025. According to a joint statement released by both sides, the leaders agreed to “avoid destabilizing actions” in the South China Sea, including large-scale military drills and the deployment of advanced weapons systems near disputed territories. The framework also includes provisions for expanded trade ties, with China pledging to increase imports of U.S. Beef and poultry—a move that follows Trump’s earlier demands for Beijing to address perceived unfair trade practices.

However, the absence of explicit commitments to uphold existing regional alliances—such as the U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral security pact or the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) process—has raised alarms in Southeast Asia. “The problem isn’t just that Trump and Xi are talking about ‘strategic stability,’” said Dr. Marcus Mietzner, a political scientist at the Australian National University. “It’s that the framework they’ve agreed on doesn’t account for the security concerns of middle powers like Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines, who have been on the front lines of China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea.”

Indonesia, which has historically maintained a delicate balance between its strategic partnership with the U.S. And its economic ties to China, is particularly wary of the implications. In a statement issued by the Indonesian Foreign Ministry on May 17, officials noted that while Jakarta welcomed efforts to reduce tensions, “any agreement must respect the sovereignty and maritime rights of all nations in the region, including those enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).” The ministry did not directly criticize the Trump-Xi framework but emphasized Indonesia’s commitment to a “rules-based order” in the Indo-Pacific.

The Philippines, which has seen a resurgence of U.S. Military support under Trump’s administration, is also monitoring the developments closely. In a press briefing on May 18, Philippine National Security Adviser Clarence Nobleza stated that Manila remains “fully supportive of our alliance with the United States” but called for clarity on how the new framework would address China’s ongoing construction of artificial islands and military installations in the Spratly Islands. “We need to ensure that strategic stability doesn’t become a euphemism for strategic surrender,” Nobleza said.

Japan, though not directly part of the Trump-Xi discussions, has signaled unease over the potential shift in U.S. Policy. A senior official from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that Tokyo expects Washington to maintain its “free and open Indo-Pacific” strategy, which includes robust defense cooperation with regional partners. “Japan’s security is indivisible from that of its allies in Southeast Asia,” the official said. “We urge the U.S. To ensure that any agreement with China does not compromise the collective defense commitments that have been the bedrock of regional stability for decades.”

Economically, the framework’s focus on trade could further complicate matters for Southeast Asian nations that have relied on U.S. Countervailing measures to offset China’s economic dominance. For example, Vietnam—a key U.S. Partner in semiconductor supply chains—has already faced pressure from Beijing to reduce its reliance on American technology exports. Under the Trump-Xi agreement, China has committed to purchasing an additional $10 billion worth of U.S. Agricultural products, but We find no parallel guarantees to protect smaller economies from retaliatory measures if they continue to align with Washington on issues like Taiwan or the South China Sea.

Analysts warn that the lack of transparency around the framework’s enforcement mechanisms could also embolden China to test the limits of regional tolerance. “Without clear red lines and third-party verification, ‘constructive strategic stability’ risks becoming a one-sided commitment,” said Dr. Carlyle Thayer, emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales. “China has a long history of interpreting such agreements in ways that favor its own interests, often at the expense of smaller neighbors.”

In the absence of a detailed public roadmap, Southeast Asian leaders are likely to adopt a wait-and-see approach, but with heightened vigilance. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has struggled to present a unified front on China, may use its upcoming summit in November to press for a regional consensus on how to engage with the new U.S.-China dynamic. Meanwhile, defense planners in the region are reportedly accelerating joint military exercises with the U.S. And its allies as a precautionary measure.

For now, the immediate impact of the Trump-Xi framework remains unclear. While the White House has framed the agreement as a victory for “America First” diplomacy, the lack of consultation with traditional allies has left many in Southeast Asia questioning whether the U.S. Is prioritizing short-term détente over long-term regional security. As one Indonesian diplomat put it: “The devil will be in the details—and whether those details include a seat at the table for the countries that matter most in this region.”