Asymmetry in Competition: Trump’s China Policy

Introduction

Donald Trump’s return as the 47th President of the United States has brought renewed attention to U.S.-China relations, particularly through the ideological leanings and professional trajectories of his cabinet and key appointees. The nominations of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary, and Alex Wong as Deputy National Security Advisor suggest a cohesive yet disruptive approach toward Beijing.

The ideological underpinnings and professional trajectories of Trump’s appointees indicate a strategy rooted in intensified ideological rivalry, broader economic decoupling, and an assertive military posture in the Indo-Pacific. With a probable emphasis on framing China as an existential threat to global democracy, escalating export controls on advanced technologies, and adopting a more militarized regional strategy, the administration’s approach appears both cohesive and disruptive.

While elements of continuity with the previous administration’s policies are evident, Trump’s team seems poised to amplify tensions with Beijing, potentially escalating risks of economic fragmentation and military flashpoints. This article delves into whether these developments mark a continuation or a disruptive shift, assessing the ideological alignment of Trump’s appointees and the broader implications for U.S.-China relations in an era of strategic competition.

Key Nominations and Ideological Alignment

1. Marco Rubio (Secretary of State): Senator Marco Rubio’s long-standing hawkish stance on China positions him as a strategic torchbearer for Trump’s foreign policy. Rubio has been a vocal critic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), emphasizing Beijing’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and its coercive strategies in the Indo-Pacific. Rubio’s advocacy for decoupling U.S. economic dependencies on China aligns with Trump’s “America First” rhetoric, yet it adds a layer of ideological rigor rooted in moral exceptionalism. Rubio’s focus on human rights contrasts with the pragmatism often seen in Biden’s approach, which balances such concerns with maintaining global stability. Under Rubio’s leadership, the State Department is likely to adopt an aggressive narrative that frames China not only as a strategic competitor but as an existential ideological adversary. This framing could catalyse alliances with like-minded democracies but may strain relations with partners seeking less confrontation, such as in Southeast Asia.
2. Mike Waltz: (National Security Advisor): A former Green Beret and sitting congressman, Mike Waltz has consistently advocated for a robust military presence in the Indo-Pacific. Waltz’s expertise in asymmetric warfare and his vocal support for Taiwan’s sovereignty suggest an uncompromising approach to Beijing’s regional ambitions. His leadership would likely emphasize the militarization of the First and Second Island Chains, increasing Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in contested waters, and enhancing U.S.-Taiwan defense cooperation. Waltz’s nomination signals a hardline trajectory that moves beyond deterrence to active containment. Unlike Jake Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Advisor, whose approach balances escalation risks with strategic patience, Waltz may advocate for more kinetic postures, including joint military exercises that openly challenge Beijing’s “red lines.” Such actions risk increasing the probability of unintended military escalation, especially in the South China Sea.
3. Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence): Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination as DNI is perhaps the most unconventional. Known for her scepticism of U.S. interventionism, Gabbard has also expressed concerns about China’s influence. Gabbard’s ideological ambivalence could introduce a nuanced intelligence strategy, focusing on transparency and public awareness campaigns rather than covert operations. However, her approach may conflict with the more traditional hawks in Trump’s team, potentially leading to policy incoherence in operational terms.
4. Howard Lutnick (Secretary of Commerce): Howard Lutnick’s appointment reflects Trump’s prioritization of economic leverage as a primary tool of statecraft. As head of the Commerce Department, Lutnick would oversee the continuation or expansion of export controls and tariffs targeting China’s tech sector, particularly in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. Lutnick’s background as a financier suggests an analytical approach rooted in market dynamics, potentially introducing targeted measures designed to maximize U.S. technological dominance while limiting collateral damage to global supply chains.

This strategy builds on Biden’s semiconductor export controls but may adopt a more punitive tone, extending restrictions to broader sectors of the Chinese economy. Such measures could exacerbate economic decoupling, potentially accelerating Beijing’s push for technological self-sufficiency.

5. Alex Wong (Deputy National Security Advisor): As a former chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Alex Wong brings institutional expertise on Beijing’s economic strategies and military modernization. Wong’s appointment indicates a commitment to addressing systemic challenges posed by China, such as intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and the militarization of dual-use technologies. Wong’s pragmatic understanding of China’s strengths and vulnerabilities may drive a policy that blends containment with selective engagement. However, under Trump’s leadership, Wong’s technocratic pragmatism may be overshadowed by more ideologically driven strategies from Rubio and Waltz.

Strategic Themes in Trump’s China Policy

1. Economic Decoupling and Technological Competition: Trump’s nominations suggest a continuation and intensification of economic decoupling policies initiated under his first term and carried forward by Biden. However, where Biden’s approach has been surgical, focusing on critical technologies like semiconductors, Trump’s team may adopt a broader, more indiscriminate strategy, targeting entire sectors of the Chinese economy. Lutnick and Rubio are likely to advocate for secondary sanctions against entities trading with Chinese firms on U.S. export control lists, a move that could alienate European and Asian allies. While this may cripple China’s short-term access to advanced technologies, it risks accelerating Beijing’s technological independence under its “dual circulation” strategy.

3. Militarization of the Indo-Pacific: Under Waltz and Wong, U.S. military posture in the Indo-Pacific is likely to become more aggressive. Increased naval deployments and arms sales to Taiwan, coupled with joint exercises involving Japan, Australia, and India, will signal an unmistakable challenge to Chinese territorial claims. This confrontational approach diverges from Biden’s strategy, which seeks to strengthen alliances without overtly provoking Beijing. Trump’s team appears less concerned with escalation risks, potentially leading to flashpoints in areas like the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea.

3. Ideological Confrontation and Human Rights: Rubio’s leadership will likely intensify ideological competition with Beijing, framing U.S.-China relations as a contest between democracy and authoritarianism. This narrative aligns with Biden’s rhetoric but diverges in execution. Rubio is expected to use human rights as a tool for economic and diplomatic pressure, such as advocating for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. However, this approach may limit U.S. flexibility in negotiating with Beijing on other critical issues, such as climate change or North Korea, areas where Biden has sought limited engagement.

4. Weaponization of Multilateral Institutions: Stefanik’s tenure at the U.N. could represent a stark departure from Biden’s multilateral diplomacy. Her confrontational approach risks isolating China but may also erode U.S. influence if member states perceive the strategy as unilateral or coercive. By prioritizing punitive measures over coalition-building, Trump’s administration may inadvertently cede ground to Beijing in other forums, such as the World Trade Organization or BRICS.

Comparison with Biden’s Strategy

The trajectory of U.S.-China relations under Donald Trump’s potential administration, as indicated by his nominations, reflects both a continuation and a sharp divergence from the strategies pursued by President Joe Biden. While Biden’s China policy has been characterized by a pragmatic balance between competition and limited cooperation, Trump’s approach—shaped by his appointees—appears to lean toward overt confrontation. Below, the key dimensions of comparison are explored:

1. Ideological Confrontation- From Competition to Moral Crusade: President Biden’s strategy acknowledges China as a systemic rival but often emphasizes the need for a rules-based international order rather than direct ideological confrontation. Biden has engaged allies and partners to present a united front against Beijing, promoting democratic values without necessarily framing the competition as a binary struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

In contrast, Trump’s team, led by figures like Marco Rubio, would likely amplify the ideological dimension of U.S.-China competition. Rubio’s emphasis on exposing human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong and portraying the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as an existential threat to global democracy suggests a more moralistic and confrontational framing. This shift could alienate countries that prefer to engage China pragmatically, such as those in Southeast Asia or parts of Europe, complicating multilateral efforts to contain Beijing’s influence.

2. Economic Decoupling and Technological Competition: Biden’s economic strategy toward China has been carefully calibrated. While he has retained many of Trump’s tariffs and expanded restrictions on technology exports, his administration has focused on surgical measures, such as targeting semiconductor supply chains and imposing restrictions on AI-related technologies. Biden has sought to collaborate with allies like Japan, South Korea, and the European Union to enforce these controls, emphasizing a multilateral approach to managing economic competition with Beijing.

Trump’s potential policy, guided by Howard Lutnick and Alex Wong, appears more unilateral and expansive. Lutnick’s leadership in the Commerce Department could extend tariffs and export restrictions to a broader range of industries, aiming to cripple China’s economic ambitions comprehensively. Unlike Biden, who has sought to mitigate global supply chain disruptions, Trump’s administration may prioritize punitive measures over economic stability. This could accelerate China’s push for technological self-reliance under its “dual circulation” strategy, reducing long-term U.S. leverage.

3. Military Posture in the Indo-Pacific: Biden has pursued a strategy of integrated deterrence, enhancing alliances like AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Quad (the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia) while avoiding provocative military actions that could escalate tensions. His administration’s emphasis on capacity-building in allied nations reflects a long-term strategy of counterbalancing China without direct confrontation. Under Trump, with Mike Waltz and Alex Wong at the helm of security strategy, the U.S. military posture in the Indo-Pacific is likely to become far more assertive. Waltz’s hawkish stance on Taiwan and the South China Sea suggests an emphasis on kinetic military activities, including expanded Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and high-profile arms sales to Taipei. While Biden has tread cautiously around Beijing’s “red lines,” Trump’s team may deliberately challenge them, raising the risk of miscalculation or military incidents. This aggressive posture signals a departure from Biden’s calculated deterrence to a policy of active containment.

4. Human Rights as a Strategic Tool: Biden has consistently highlighted human rights issues in China, particularly in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, but has balanced this rhetoric with practical diplomacy. His administration has avoided allowing human rights advocacy to derail broader strategic engagement on issues like climate change or North Korea. In contrast, Rubio’s leadership at the State Department is likely to elevate human rights to a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy toward China. This could include expanded sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, public campaigns against China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other minorities, and efforts to block Chinese influence in cultural and academic institutions. While morally compelling, this approach risks overshadowing other strategic objectives and complicating dialogue with Beijing on pressing transnational issues.

5. Technological and Economic Alliances: Under Biden, the U.S. has focused on building alliances to address China’s rise in critical technologies. The CHIPS Act and related initiatives have not only aimed to bolster domestic semiconductor production but also sought alignment with allies to reduce dependency on Chinese tech. Trump’s team, particularly with Lutnick in Commerce, may adopt a more combative stance. Instead of seeking alignment with allies, Trump’s administration could impose secondary sanctions on countries or companies engaging with restricted Chinese entities. This unilateral approach could strain relationships with European and Asian partners, reducing the effectiveness of collective technological competition against China.

Conclusion: A Disruptive Continuation

While Trump’s China policy under these appointments retains elements of continuity, such as a focus on economic and technological competition, it represents a more disruptive approach overall. The aggressive militarization of the Indo-Pacific, intensified ideological confrontation, and unilateral economic strategies reflect a shift from Biden’s cautious escalation to outright strategic competition. This policy risks escalating tensions with Beijing, reducing avenues for dialogue, and polarizing international opinion. While it may yield short-term strategic gains, the long-term consequences—such as economic fragmentation and military flashpoints—remain uncertain. For China, Trump’s return signals not just a continuation of competition but a more unpredictable and confrontational era.