‘Philippines-first’ policy is derailing America’s China strategy—Trump must act fast or watch ASEAN tilt to Beijing

This week, the U.S. signed a defense pact with the Philippines, hailing it as vital to countering China’s creeping dominance in the hotly-disputed South China Sea.

China’s militarization of these disputed waters, including its latest radar installation on a contested reef, raises new threats that Washington seeks to confront.

But beneath the celebratory rhetoric of ‘ironclad’ ties lies a troubling reality: the Philippines is exploiting its relationship with Washington to advance its own national agenda, threatening to derail decades of U.S. strategy in the region.

The Philippines has long been a cornerstone of America’s Southeast Asia policy, a vital outpost in Washington’s effort to counter its adversaries.

During the Cold War, American presence there was instrumental in checking Soviet influence. Today, as the spotlight shifts to China, this partnership has become even more critical.

Washington’s reliance on Manilla has been rooted in unwavering commitment to mutual security, embodied most notably in its controversial backing of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., the former dictator and father of the incumbent president.

This trust is now being weaponized by Manila, who appear to see it as providing free reign for it to pursue its destabilizing ambitions.

Manila’s recent recklessness is glaring. From asserting South China Sea claims even the U.S. hesitates to endorse, to Filipino agents reportedly plotting to lease sovereign Malaysian territory to Beijing—the Philippines is adopting an aggressive foreign policy, seemingly overreaching without the backing of a superpower.

Yet, the real issue lies with Manilla undermining U.S. strategy, isolating its allies and strengthening Beijing’s hand in the region.

Malaysia, the direct target of Manila’s aggression—most recently via a Filipino UN petition which staked claim to Malaysian territory—is vital in maintaining the naval cordon against Beijing. Yet, years of meticulous American diplomacy to integrate them into the containment alliance may unravel in the face of unswerving hostility from Manilla.

Moreover, as Malaysia prepares to lead ASEAN—Southeast Asia’s UN equivalent—Manila’s provocations risk disturbing the entire bloc. Meanwhile, Beijing tightens its grip, drawing ASEAN nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand into the anti-U.S. BRICS alliance. A single Filipino misstep could tip the bloc fully into China’s orbit, which would devastate America’s strategic position in the region.

The incoming Trump administration must quickly recognize the gravity of this problem. Its containment strategy cannot endure if a key partner acts as a destabilizing force. Washington must recalibrate its approach, ensuring that its support for the Philippines is tightly focused on countering China, not enabling Manila’s divisive agenda.

Firm diplomacy could address this matter, ensuring that Filipino interests don’t come at the expense of American strategy. But there is another critical legal development that America holds little sway over that couldspiral relations between Philippines and Malaysia to new lows.

Malaysia is embroiled in a legal battle against the backers of the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu—a defunct Filipino kingdom that once claimed control over lands in present-day Malaysia and Philippines. At the heart of the case lie the resource rights of Sabah, Malaysia’s oil and gas-rich easternmost province.

The case revolves around a colonial-era agreement, where the Sultanate ceded Sabah to two colonial explorers for a nominal yearly fee. Although Malaysia wasn’t a party to this deal, the heirs contend that as Sabah’s sovereign, it’s obligated to continue these payments. This is despite the people of Sabah having previously, freely chosen to exercise their right of self-determination and to join Malaysia in a historic UN-organised commission.

Malaysia initially made payments under the agreement, but, after an abortive invasion of Sabah, orchestrated by followers of a supposed heir of the former Sultan, Malaysia ceased the payments. Backed by barrister Paul Cohen, a former speechwriter to the Clinton/Gore campaign, and litigation funder Therium, the Sultan’s supposed heirs initiated international arbitration, seeking $15 billion.

Despite the shaky foundations of the heirs’ case, the presiding arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa issued a controversial verdict, siding with the Sulus and issuing a $15bn award against Malaysia. The ruling was controversial because Stampa ignored a prior ruling, from the same court that appointed him, that revoked his authority as arbitrator. Defying this disqualification, he proceeded anyway, and was subsequently criminally convicted for contempt of court.

Stampa’s willingness to continue the proceedings in the face of a court-ordered nullification raised questions as to his conduct, concerns which only grew after it came to light that he had charged an unusually high $2 million fee for his services, raising suspicions of financial motives unduly influencing legal proceedings. This unease further intensified in light of the news that Therium had invested in excess of $20 million in the case, all in exchange for a portion of any financial winnings made in the case. This situation has alarmed legal experts, including U.S. Attorney General Keith Ellison, who warned that such funding practices foster broad room for “potential corruption.”

In defiance of these revelations, the Sulu backers have embarked on a shifting legal enforcement strategy, spanning multiple European jurisdictions. Despite their efforts, courts in Madrid, Luxembourg, the Hague and Paris, all have either suspended or outright denied enforcement of the award.

The latest twist in this provocative strategy sees lead counsel Cohen proposing leasing Sabah to foreign powers, including China. The threat, however speculative, of Filipino nationals purporting to grant rights over sovereign Malaysian territory to Beijing is a clear incendiary flashpoint in a region which is already on the brink. Such bids risk facilitating a Chinese outpost on the other side of the South China Sea, which would upend America’s containment efforts and threat regional peace.

America may hold little sway over the strategy of one rogue legal team, but its consequences should be a wake-up call for its policymakers to act decisively to rein in Manila’s reckless provocations and safeguard its fragile alliance chain.

Without swift action, America risks facilitating local infighting that play directly into Beijing’s hands—jeopardizing the world’s most vital maritime and seabed routes while paving way for China’s unrestrained imperial ambitions across the Indo-Pacific.