During his nomination hearing to become the next U.S. secretary of state, then-Senator Marco Rubio noted that the U.S. government should engage Central Asia and called for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to be annulled. These statements caused optimism in Central Asia, particularly by the Kazakhstani and Uzbekistani media, that the region will not be overlooked again during the second Trump administration.
The comments came following a question from Senator Steve Daines (R-MT), who explained how “in the last 12 months, I visited all five of the Central Asian countries.” He added that a goal of a caucus created with Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) “is to repeal the Jackson-Vanik label on the region and extend permanent normal trade relations with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.”
Daines asked Rubio if he would work with the caucus to obtain this objective and further engage Central Asia. Rubio answered, “Yeah, and I believe the permanent removal will require legislative action… Look, I think this is a relic of an era that’s past.” Rubio added, “I think it’s Kazakhstan, who the Department of Commerce has already said is a market economy. In fact, I think they hosted the WTO ministerial just a couple of years ago. So they’ve met the conditions [to repeal Jackson-Vanik].”
Daines also briefly mentioned the C5+1 format and the possibility of “maybe hosting some kind of a summit there [in Central Asia]… After the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we need more friends in Central Asia, and I look forward to working on that.”
The Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 rendered certain countries ineligible for permanent normal trade relations due to restrictions on emigration, specifically that of Soviet Jews seeking to leave the Soviet Union. The amendment remained in place over a wide swath of countries after the Soviet collapse. It was repealed in regard to Kyrgyzstan in 1998 and Russia in 2012, but most Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan — remain subject to its provisions.
The Jackson-Vanik Amendment can only be lifted by Congressional legislation, not the White House. Previous Democratic and Republican administrations have equally supported annulling it. However, despite bipartisan support for the initiative, a bill to annul the amendment has yet to make it out of committee in Congress.
This past November, the Kazakhstani embassy in the U.S. held a conference titled “Strengthening U.S.-Kazakhstan ties: High Time to Establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations,” with presentations by Daines, Senator Christopher Murphy, and Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Tom Suozzi. The audience for the event, which occurred in the U.S. Capitol, included congressional staffers, such as personnel from the powerful Ways and Means Committee. The conference’s objective was to discuss bilateral relations and how trade and investment can grow if (or when) the amendment is annulled. Even with support from the State Department, assuming now-Secretary Rubio remains true to his word, it is unclear if Congress will vote to repeal Jackson-Vanik.
Another clarification that needs to be made concerns Daines’ mention of the C5+1 initiative. The Biden administration took Central Asia-U.S. engagement to the next level via a historic presidential C5+1 summit on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in 2023. New high-profile meetings followed: in February 2024, the Department of State hosted the inaugural C5+1 Critical Minerals Dialogue. A month later, in March, the first B5+1 Forum took place in Almaty to discuss economic and investment opportunities in Central Asia for U.S. businesses. Important bilateral meetings also occurred last year, including the U.S.-Kazakhstan Strategic Energy Dialogue and the U.S.-Uzbekistan Strategic Partnership Dialogue. In September, Washington and Tashkent also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to strengthen cooperation on critical minerals, a topic of growing importance for Washington.
After Trump’s election, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan and the then-U.S. president-elect had a telephone conversation in December to maintain the “intensive development” of strategic partnerships in areas like trade, investment, and nuclear non-proliferation.
With the Trump administration in the White House and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, U.S. foreign policy could (and probably will) significantly change compared to the Biden administration. While global hotspots like Ukraine, the Middle East, and China will remain priorities, analysts hope for constructive and holistic engagements with other regions, such as Central Asia. The Caspian Policy Center (CPC) issued a report in mid-January with policy recommendations for the Trump administration to engage Central Asia and the Caucasus. These recommendations include the repeal of Jackson-Vanik; development of a Trans-Caspian Regional Security Strategy that integrates Central Asia and the Caucasus; appointing senior and experienced ambassadors and staff to the region; and promoting energy cooperation, with a specific focus on traditional and next-generation energy, including critical minerals and rare earths.
The report also provides more specific recommendations, such as appointing a Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia region, transferring Central Asia oversight from the State Department’s South and Central Asia Bureau to the Europe Bureau, and moving Central Asia from USAID’s Asia Bureau to the Europe and Eurasia Bureau.
The C5+1 framework continues to be regarded as the prime diplomatic tool to engage Central Asia. The CPC report suggests including Caucasus countries and hosting a Trans-Caspian summit or ministerial visit to Washington to discuss business and energy development. Like Daines, the report also recommends a high-level meeting in Central Asia, with a presence by a sitting U.S. president; if it occurs, this would be the first time a U.S. president travels to the region. (I have also proposed a Ministerial Green 5+1 to diversify engagement and dialogue while also focusing on environmental issues).
It is worth noting that while Central Asian integration is generally moving forward, broadly speaking, the foreign policies of the five countries differ. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are likely more interested in greater engagement with Washington. Astana, for example, wants to almost double its GDP from $321 billion in 2025 to $498 billion by 2029. U.S. trade and investment – in areas other than mining and energy – will be paramount for Astana to achieve this objective, not to mention the repeal of Jackson-Vanik. On the other hand, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are increasingly linked to Beijing. Finally, Turkmenistan continues to pursue its policy of “positive neutrality,” though Ashgabat hosted the presidents of Iran and Russia this past October.
The exchange between Daines and Rubio at the latter’s nomination hearing has prompted expectations that Central Asia will not be an overlooked region during the second Trump administration. There are many reasons why Washington should continue to engage this region, given geopolitical and security considerations, issues related to mining and access to critical minerals, and investment opportunities, not to mention working together to improve good governance, respect for human rights, and address regional environmental issues. Countries like Kazakhstan want to increase their partnership with Washington, and it is now the Trump administration’s turn to move relations forward.
