The recent Stratbase Institute survey revealing overwhelming Filipino public trust in the United States as a security partner presents a comforting narrative, but one that demands urgent and sober reevaluation in light of recent alarming geopolitical developments.
The survey, conducted on 12-15 December 2025, asked 1,200 respondents nationwide to choose up to five countries they “trust and believe the government should work with in asserting Philippine rights and protect national interests,” and 82 percent chose the United States, followed by Japan (64 percent), Canada (58 percent), Australia (51 percent) and South Korea (37 percent). Meanwhile, only 11 percent of the respondents chose China.
The results, said the think tank, indicate “strong public confidence in partners that respect international rights, follow a rules-based order and support Philippine sovereignty.
While the desire for allies who “respect international law and follow a rules-based order” is logical, recent actions and pronouncements of US President Donald J. Trump contradict these very principles.
The recent Venezuela episode —involving unilateral military action and the extraction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife who were brought to the US to stand trial as narco-terrorists-alongside a threat to acquire Greenland and a declared disregard for treaty constraints sketch a blueprint for an ultra-unilateralist US foreign policy.
Filipinos must be aware that such an America is not a reliable partner for a rules-based assertion of sovereignty; it is a volatile power that may protect our interests only when they perfectly align with its own self-interest agenda, at a potentially catastrophic cost to Philippine autonomy.
The primary concern for the Philippines must be the utter erosion of predictability and commitment where it concerns the US under its current chief of state.
The bedrock of any defense alliance, like the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty forged in 1951, is mutual trust and clarity of obligations. President Trump’s stated view during his recent interview with The New York Times that he alone arbitrates the limits of US authority, not treaties or international law, renders any agreement conditional and ephemeral.
Support in the West Philippine Sea might be offered not as a treaty obligation to a sovereign ally but as a transactional favor — with a price tag. Conversely, it could be withdrawn abruptly if deemed unfavorable to a domestic political calculus.
What transpired in Venezuela demonstrated Trump’s willingness to use overwhelming force based on a unilateral doctrine, not collective security. For Manila, this raises a terrifying question: considering the mental bent and character of the president of an ally, which could create a crisis in the South China Sea escalated by its own unilateral action, would the Philippines allow itself to be dragged into a conflict that it could ill-afford?
Furthermore, Trump’s demonstrated disregard for the sovereignty of other nations — whether through the violation of Venezuela’s or his cavalier musing on purchasing Greenland — is in direct opposition to the Philippine goal of having its own sovereignty respected.
An alliance with a power that acts as the sole arbiter of international norms is inherently dangerous for a smaller state.
It risks reducing the Philippines from a sovereign partner to a client or a geopolitical pawn. The “protection” offered might come with implicit or explicit demands that, with Philippine acquiescence, would leave an imbalance disadvantageous to the country.
This does not necessarily mean an outright abandonment of the US relationship, which has deep historical and practical strands. It does, however, argue powerfully for the survey’s implied alternative: a rapid and serious diversification of strategic partnerships — with Japan, Canada and Australia emerging as more stable and more reliable counterparts.
These are democratic allies with significant maritime capabilities who expressly advocate for a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific and have invested in deepening bilateral security agreements with the Philippines.
Their approach, while aligned with Washington on many points, is typically more institutionalized, predictable and respectful of regional frameworks like ASEAN.
Solidifying cooperation with Tokyo, Ottawa and Canberra builds a more resilient web of support less vulnerable to the wild political swings of Washington under a leader grown imperialistic.
The Venezuela episode and President Trump’s rhetoric are a wake-up call. Filipinos must be aware that the object of their trust is potentially transforming into a disruptive force that views alliances as liabilities to be managed, not partnerships to be nurtured.
The national concern must shift from simply expecting US protection to actively insulating the nation from the profound risks of a mercenary and unpredictable superpower. The imperative is clear: while maintaining ties with Washington, the Philippines must accelerate building its own defensive capabilities and deepen institutionalized security ties with other like-minded, rules-abiding democracies.
The goal is not to choose sides in an ideological battle, but to steadfastly defend Philippine sovereignty from all who would disregard it — a category that may, unsettlingly, come to include its oldest ally.