US Lawmakers Question Quad's Priority in Indo-Pacific Strategy Amid China Focus

US lawmakers expressed concern during a hearing that the Quad alliance is not receiving sufficient emphasis in the national security strategy. Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kapur defended the grouping as a vital platform revived during the Trump administration to counter coercive leverage in the region. The hearing highlighted bipartisan strategic continuity in using the Quad to prevent any single hegemon, namely China, from dominating the Indo-Pacific. Kapur emphasized India's central role and noted the Quad's evolution into a key mechanism for regional coordination.

Key Points: Lawmakers Press US Official on Quad's Role vs. China

  • Lawmakers concerned over Quad's mention in strategy
  • Official says Quad is central to countering China
  • Grouping revived under Trump administration
  • Bipartisan support for Indo-Pacific strategy
3 min read

Lawmakers press Trump admin official on Quad priority

US lawmakers debate the Quad's prominence in Indo-Pacific strategy as State Department defends its importance for balancing China's influence.

"I think the Quad is a very important platform. - Paul Kapur"

Washington, Feb 12

Lawmakers questioned whether the Quad is being given sufficient prominence in the US' Indo-Pacific strategy, even as the State Department defended the grouping as a "very important platform" central to balancing China's influence.

During a House subcommittee hearing on South and Central Asia on Wednesday (local time), Democratic Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove said she was concerned that the Quad is "only mentioned twice in the 2025 national security strategy."

"I hope you can lean in, in your role and remind everyone else how important the quad is and how strategic it is to the work we're trying to do in the region," she told Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Paul Kapur.

Kapur pushed back on the suggestion that the administration was downgrading the grouping.

"I think the Quad is a very important platform," he said, noting that it was revived "during the first Trump administration" after having been "defunct."

He said the Quad -- comprising the United States, India, Japan and Australia -- "has grown in importance since then" and "enables us to connect and cooperate in unique ways with our like-minded partners."

Kapur tied the grouping explicitly to broader strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific.

"What we're trying to do fundamentally is not to keep China out of the region but to prevent China or any single hegemon from taking over or imposing coercive leverage on the region," he said.

In that framework, India's role is central. "India has been an active member of the Quad, and we interact with India both bilaterally and in the Quad context, and that is, I think, a promising venue for us to cooperate," Kapur said.

Republican Rep. Keith Self pressed further, probing whether the Quad was assertive enough in countering Beijing.

"Are they aggressive in the Quad?" Self asked.

"I don't know if I'd say they're aggressive, but they are important members of the Quad," Kapur responded.

The exchange underscored differing expectations in Congress about how forcefully the Quad should operate in the face of China's expanding military and economic footprint across the Indo-Pacific.

Earlier in the hearing, Kapur had framed US regional policy as aimed at preventing any single power from dominating South Asia and the Indian Ocean.

"In India, that is able to be independent and preserve its freedom of action, takes a huge swath of the Indo-Pacific off of China's plate and almost by definition prevents it from becoming the dominant power in the region," he said.

Lawmakers from both parties signalled bipartisan continuity on the broader strategy.

"This kind of strategic thinking has transcended both Democratic and Republican administrations," Democratic Rep. Ami Bera said.

Kapur closed the exchange by highlighting early diplomatic engagement under the current administration.

"The Quad is important to us, and Secretary Rubio, I think, his first engagement when he became Secretary of State was in fact a Quad engagement," he said.

The Quad was first launched in 2007, lapsed for nearly a decade, and was revived in 2017. It has since evolved into a core mechanism for Indo-Pacific coordination on maritime security, technology cooperation, and regional resilience amid intensifying strategic competition with China.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
Interesting to see the internal US debate. The lawmakers' concern shows they recognize the Quad's value. Kapur's point about India's independence being key is spot on. A strong, sovereign India is the best counterbalance in the region. Hope the bureaucratic focus matches the strategic importance.
V
Vikram M
Good that it's getting attention in the US Congress. But we must be careful. India should cooperate with the Quad for our own national interest—infrastructure, tech, and maritime security—not just to serve American strategic goals. Our partnership must be on equal terms. 🇮🇳
P
Priya S
The focus should be on what the Quad delivers for the people—vaccine initiatives, climate projects, disaster response. Less talk of "countering" and more on concrete cooperation. That's how you build lasting trust and resilience in the region. The hearing seemed a bit too focused on military posture.
R
Rohit P
The revival in 2017 was a masterstroke. It's a flexible, non-treaty based grouping that suits India's style. We don't need to be "aggressive" as that Republican asked. Steady, persistent cooperation on shared goals is far more effective and sustainable. Jai Hind!
M
Michael C
As an observer, the bipartisan support in the US is reassuring for long-term stability. Kapur's framing is smart—it's about preventing coercion, not containment. India's central role is undeniable. This is the kind of pragmatic geopolitics needed in the 21st century.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50