US-China Relations Under the Trump Administration

In stark contrast to the post-Cold War orthodoxy of cautious engagement and strategic hedging, the Trump administration embraced an overtly adversarial posture that prioritized economic protectionism, sovereign autonomy, and ideological contestation. Through the prism of “America First” nationalism, China was increasingly construed not merely as a peer competitor but as a systemic challenger to U.S. global primacy—catalyzing a profound recalibration in the strategic architecture underpinning bilateral engagement.

I. Economic Warfare and the Resurgence of Protectionist Paradigms

At the core of the Trump administration’s China strategy was an unapologetically confrontational economic agenda. Longstanding grievances regarding Beijing’s mercantilist practices—ranging from coercive technology transfers and industrial subsidies to currency manipulation and violations of intellectual property rights—were thrust to the forefront of bilateral discourse. The imposition of punitive tariffs on over $360 billion in Chinese exports beginning in 2018 marked the formal initiation of a protracted trade war that reverberated across global supply chains and financial markets.

The administration’s invocation of economic nationalism was not merely rhetorical but structural, aimed at re-shoring industrial production and diminishing asymmetric dependencies on Chinese manufacturing. The Phase One trade agreement, signed in January 2020, nominally represented a détente, mandating increased Chinese purchases of U.S. goods and commitments to IP reform. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 and enduring macroeconomic frictions rendered the agreement only partially effective and largely symbolic. In scholarly assessments, these measures are increasingly viewed not as isolated acts of retaliation but as integral components of a broader geoeconomic doctrine oriented toward strategic decoupling.

II. Technological Containment and Cyber-Sovereignty

Parallel to its trade policy, the Trump administration operationalized a robust containment strategy in the technological domain. Citing national security imperatives, U.S. authorities imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese telecommunications conglomerates such as Huawei and ZTE, designating them as security threats and lobbying international allies to exclude them from next-generation infrastructure networks. Proposed bans on mobile applications like TikTok and WeChat, grounded in data privacy and surveillance concerns, further exemplified efforts to insulate the American digital ecosystem from Chinese influence.

The administration also launched the “Clean Network” initiative, aimed at constructing a bifurcated global internet predicated on normative alignment with democratic principles. The indictment of Chinese nationals for cyber intrusions into U.S. institutions highlighted the intensifying contest over cyberspace sovereignty and technological supremacy. These maneuvers reflect a neo-containment paradigm, wherein technological autonomy is viewed as essential to safeguarding national security and ideological resilience.

III. Geopolitical Contestation and Maritime Assertiveness

Geopolitically, the Trump administration adopted a markedly revisionist stance on regional flashpoints involving Chinese assertiveness. The South China Sea, long a theater of strategic ambiguity, emerged as a locus of confrontation as U.S. naval forces increased freedom of navigation operations to challenge Beijing’s expansive territorial claims—claims deemed incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This maritime assertiveness was bolstered by deepened security collaboration with regional partners under the Indo-Pacific strategy, including Japan, India, and Australia.

The Taiwan issue, traditionally managed through strategic ambiguity, assumed greater prominence through U.S. arms sales and high-level visits that, while short of formal recognition, eroded longstanding diplomatic conventions. Simultaneously, the administration vocally condemned the erosion of Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status via Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law, leading to sanctions and the revocation of Hong Kong’s preferential economic treatment. Collectively, these actions underscored a willingness to confront Chinese revisionism through both coercive diplomacy and symbolic affirmations of liberal norms.

IV. Ideological Polarization and the Erosion of Diplomatic Norms

The Trump administration advanced a bifurcated worldview in which China was cast as the primary antagonist in a global struggle between liberal democracy and authoritarian capitalism. Senior officials, most notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, framed the Chinese Communist Party as an existential threat to international norms and liberal institutions—rhetoric evocative of Cold War-era ideological binaries.

Diplomatic relations deteriorated precipitously amidst reciprocal expulsions of journalists, restrictions on academic and cultural exchanges, and the closures of consulates in Houston and Chengdu. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated tensions, with Trump attributing the outbreak to Chinese obfuscation and repeatedly referring to it as the “China virus.” These narratives fueled xenophobic discourse and deepened bilateral distrust at both elite and public levels. Scholars increasingly interpret this ideological framing as a discursive strategy to consolidate domestic political consensus around a more confrontational China policy.

V. Enduring Strategic Legacy and Institutional Continuities

Despite rhetorical adjustments under President Joe Biden, many of the strategic contours established during Trump’s tenure have endured. Core elements such as tariffs, export controls, and scrutiny of outbound investments remain central to Washington’s China policy, now embedded within a broader multilateral framework. The bipartisan consensus in U.S. policymaking affirms a fundamental transformation in the perception of China—not as a cooperative stakeholder in globalization but as a revisionist actor warranting containment.

Legislative efforts like the CHIPS and Science Act illustrate continuity with Trump-era imperatives to fortify domestic technological capacity and insulate critical supply chains. In the geopolitical realm, revitalized partnerships such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and enhanced engagement with ASEAN underscore the persistence of a competitive, if not openly confrontational, posture toward Beijing.

Conclusion: Recasting the Bilateral Paradigm

The Trump administration’s recalibration of U.S.-China relations inaugurated a new epoch of great power rivalry—defined by structural antagonism across economic, technological, geopolitical, and ideological domains. Although critiques of the administration’s approach point to inconsistencies and an overreliance on unilateralism, its broader legacy was to mainstream a securitized, zero-sum framework for engaging with China.

This reorientation continues to inform diplomatic strategy and policy formulation in Washington and allied capitals. As the international order becomes increasingly multipolar and contested, the legacies of the Trump era serve both as a foundation and as a constraint for future engagement with the People’s Republic of China—marking a decisive rupture from the post-engagement consensus that had previously guided bilateral relations.