United States → Japan
This score represents United States's relationship toward Japan. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL
Current component scores
Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.
2 documented factors produce the +80 security assessment.
Why this score?
- +60A mutual-defence treaty remained in forceBaseline rule · 2015
A mutual-defence treaty remained in force.
- +19.6Combined planning, forces and standing operational mechanisms integrated allied defenceBaseline rule · 2015
Combined planning, forces and standing operational mechanisms integrated allied defence.
4 documented factors produce the +61 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- +15.7A leader visit produced wide-ranging bilateral outcomesBaseline rule · 2015
A leader visit produced wide-ranging bilateral outcomes.
- +7.8Standing ministerial, military and policy dialogues operated across the allianceBaseline rule · 2015
Standing ministerial, military and policy dialogues operated across the alliance.
- +27.4The governments documented an enduring strategic and democratic partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
The governments documented an enduring strategic and democratic partnership.
- +10Alliance command, technology and global coordination deepenActive event · 2024
The leaders expand command coordination, defence industry, advanced technology, economic security and people-to-people cooperation.
2 documented factors produce the +45 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- +35Bilateral trade thresholdBaseline rule · 2015
Reported trade activates the absolute methodology route using the latest observation available for this year.
- +10Alliance command, technology and global coordination deepenActive event · 2024
The leaders expand command coordination, defence industry, advanced technology, economic security and people-to-people cooperation.
2 documented factors produce the +49 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +39.2The allies coordinated across regional security, global policy and the international orderBaseline rule · 2015
The allies coordinated across regional security, global policy and the international order.
- +10Alliance command, technology and global coordination deepenActive event · 2024
The leaders expand command coordination, defence industry, advanced technology, economic security and people-to-people cooperation.
1 documented factor produce the +12 disputes assessment.
Why this score?
- +11.8The alliance operated within a durable cooperative order without a bilateral territorial claimBaseline rule · 2015
The alliance operated within a durable cooperative order without a bilateral territorial claim.
2 documented factors produce the +26 societal assessment.
Why this score?
- +15.7Official programs supported broad education, science, cultural and citizen exchangeBaseline rule · 2015
Official programs supported broad education, science, cultural and citizen exchange.
- +10Alliance command, technology and global coordination deepenActive event · 2024
The leaders expand command coordination, defence industry, advanced technology, economic security and people-to-people cooperation.
+50 in 2015 → +55 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
0 points
United States → Japan and Japan → United States remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
Alliance command, technology and global coordination deepen
The leaders expand command coordination, defence industry, advanced technology, economic security and people-to-people cooperation.
This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.
Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →