The Philippines defense dilemma

The release of the United States of America’s 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) has stirred debate across the IndoPacific, especially in countries like the Philippines that stand at the crossroads of alliance commitments and the demand for selfreliance. At its core, the NDS calls for a “denial defense along the First Island Chain,” meant to deter adversaries by strengthening forward positions. Yet the fine print signals a major shift: Washington expects allies to carry far greater responsibility for their own defense.

Michael Froman of the Council on Foreign Relations underscored this change: “For the first time in postwar history, South Korea is explicitly tasked with taking primary responsibility for the conventional North Korean threat. Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, though not named directly, are clearly expected to make massive investments in their defense enterprises.” This marks a departure from the longstanding assumption that the U.S. would continue to play an outsized role in guaranteeing regional security.

For the Philippines, the implications are sobering. Modernizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)—from fighter aircraft and naval vessels to missile systems and cyber defense—demands enormous financial resources. Most acquisitions will inevitably come from American or allied defense contractors, raising the question: is burdensharing truly about empowerment, or simply another form of dependency?

Meanwhile, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) remains in force, granting U.S. troops access to Philippine bases. While EDCA is often framed as proof of alliance solidarity, it also makes the country a potential target in any U.S.China confrontation. This dual reality—spending heavily on defense while hosting foreign forces—creates a strategic dilemma. On one hand, Manila gains training, technology, and deterrence benefits. On the other, it risks being drawn into conflicts not of its own making, while bearing the financial and political costs of militarization.

The NDS, in effect, challenges the Philippines to decide whether EDCA is truly a shield or merely a lightning rod. Ultimately, the credibility of U.S. commitments in Asia will be judged not only by its stance toward Iran or China but also by how it treats frontline allies like the Philippines. If Washington insists on burdensharing without offering clear guarantees, then Manila must weigh carefully whether its investments serve the national interest—or primarily reinforce America’s strategic posture.

In this calculus, the question is not simply about defense spending, but about sovereignty, risk, and the true meaning of alliance for a nation that has long balanced pragmatism with pride.