The Albanese government has made significant defense announcements in recent days, coinciding with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's upcoming trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. As he prepares for this international engagement, uncertainty looms over whether he will secure a one-on-one meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. The government's recent commitments are being scrutinized to determine if they represent a genuine enhancement of Australia's defense capabilities or merely a response to U.S. pressure for increased spending.

In the past week, the Labor government has unveiled several major initiatives. These include a $1.7 billion investment in underwater drones, dubbed "Ghost Sharks," which are the first combat aircraft designed and built in Australia in over 50 years. Additionally, a $12 billion submarine base is planned for Henderson, Western Australia, intended to support AUKUS nuclear submarines and rotating U.S. troops. Furthermore, a landmark defense agreement with Papua New Guinea aims for "total integration" of the two nations' military forces in response to China's growing influence.

The government also aimed to finalize a $500 million security pact with Vanuatu, which would grant Australia veto powers over Chinese investments in critical infrastructure. However, this deal has stalled unexpectedly.

Defense Minister Richard Marles dismissed suggestions that the Henderson announcement was made to appease Washington or facilitate AUKUS, asserting that it was driven by Australia's own defense needs. Albanese echoed this sentiment, stating, "Australia has always pulled our weight. We pay our way and we contribute to our alliance each and every day."

Despite these assertions, the U.S. government is seeking more than symbolic gestures; it is calling for increased defense spending. The Trump administration has urged Australia to raise its defense budget to 3.5% of its GDP, which would amount to nearly $100 billion annually. The opposition Coalition has reaffirmed its commitment to a 3% spending target, with Shadow Defense Minister Angus Taylor warning that current investments are insufficient.

Marles has refrained from specifying a GDP target, possibly to avoid appearing to yield to U.S. demands. When pressed about the current percentage of GDP allocated to defense, he noted that Labor has committed to $70 billion in defense spending increases over the next decade. He also mentioned that, according to NATO's calculation methods, Australia is already spending 2.8% of its GDP, even before the recent Henderson announcement.

As advisers and diplomats work to arrange a formal meeting between Albanese and Trump, the Prime Minister has tempered expectations. He stated, "We'll see each other in New York. He's hosting a reception on Tuesday night of next week. And as well, we'll see each other at various forums that are taking place between now and the end of the year. It's summit season."

In an effort to secure a meeting, Marles visited Washington last month to reassure U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth, that Australia would continue to increase its defense investment. As Australia ramps up its investment in AUKUS-related projects, the future of the trilateral agreement remains uncertain, pending the outcome of a review by senior Trump official Elbridge Colby.

The Pentagon has expressed concerns that years of underinvestment have created gaps in Australia's defense capabilities, which the U.S. may need to address in the event of conflict in the Indo-Pacific region. The debate over defense spending is evolving, with NATO members agreeing to increase their defense budgets to 5% of GDP by 2035, including 3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for security-related investments.

While Australia is not a NATO member, the pressure to align with these spending goals is evident. A shift to 3.5% would require an additional $30 billion annually, comparable to the entire budget for aged care in the Commonwealth. This presents a significant challenge for Albanese as he heads to New York, balancing substantial domestic commitments with the U.S. demand for increased defense spending. The key question remains whether Labor's recent defense initiatives will satisfy Washington or if only the financial figures will matter.