Trump-Zelenskyy Meeting Highlights Need
for an Independent Foreign Policy in the Philippines
The recent meeting between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reignited concerns about the reliability of American security commitments to its allies, particularly in Asia. The heated exchange between the two leaders, which reportedly ended with Zelenskyy walking out without signing a minerals deal proposed by Washington, has sparked global debate on the US’s willingness to uphold its military alliances.
For the Philippines, the event serves as a reminder of the risks associated with relying too heavily on the United States for national security. The US has historically demonstrated a readiness to deploy troops, escalate conflicts, and engage in proxy wars to advance its strategic interests—sometimes at the expense of its allies’ sovereignty. The Trump-Zelenskyy encounter underscores the reality that Washington’s foreign policy is dictated not by moral obligations or treaty commitments but by what best serves its geopolitical and economic agenda.
Since assuming office in 2022, Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has deepened military cooperation with the US, citing the country’s maritime dispute with China as justification. This has led to an expansion of American military operations in the Philippines, including large-scale joint exercises, the deployment of advanced missile systems, and the establishment of a coordination centre within Camp Aguinaldo. While these moves have been framed as strengthening national defence, critics argue they primarily serve US interests in countering China’s rise rather than securing Philippine sovereignty.
The Trump-Zelenskyy meeting has reinforced skepticism over whether the US would truly stand by its allies in times of crisis. Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel “Babe” Romualdez recently acknowledged this uncertainty, warning that Manila must be prepared for the possibility that Washington’s “ironclad” security guarantees may not hold. Speaking at a conference organised by the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines, Romualdez called on the country to bolster its own defences and economic security, suggesting that future US administrations could shift their foreign policy priorities.
Legal experts in the Philippines have echoed these concerns. Mel Sta. Maria, a former dean of the Far Eastern University’s school of law, described the Trump-Zelenskyy exchange as a stark warning that the US might not uphold its security commitments in the Asia-Pacific, even under a standing treaty. Given these uncertainties, calls for an independent foreign policy have grown louder.
Rather than serving as a pawn in a larger geopolitical struggle between superpowers, the Philippines is urged to prioritise diplomatic solutions in resolving its disputes with China. Critics argue that the country should not allow itself to be drawn into conflicts that primarily serve US strategic interests. Instead, they call for a reassessment of military agreements, the reduction of foreign troop presence, and a renewed focus on self-reliant defence capabilities.
As global power dynamics shift and US foreign policy remains unpredictable, the Philippines faces a crucial decision. It can continue to align itself with Washington’s strategic goals, potentially at great risk, or assert a more independent stance that prioritises national interests over external influences. The Trump-Zelenskyy meeting may well serve as a defining moment for Manila to reconsider its reliance on traditional alliances and chart a more sovereign path forward.