Trump’s Foreign Policy and Its Impact on U.S.-China Relations

Trump’s foreign policy, centered on an “America First” agenda, prioritized short-term interests and bilateral negotiations, overturning the traditional U.S. multilateralism. Meanwhile, China steadily expanded its global influence through economic, geopolitical, and military means. This article examines how Trump’s policies shaped U.S.-China relations and explores their impact on the global order, aiming for an objective analysis grounded in data and diverse perspectives.

Trump’s Foreign Policy: From Alliances to Transactional Strategies

Trump’s foreign policy has been described by scholars as “transactional,” focusing on direct negotiations rather than long-term alliances. For example, his controversial stance on NATO demanded increased defense spending from member states, even threatening to reduce U.S. support. According to NATO’s official reports, non-U.S. member states’ defense spending increased from $285 billion in 2014 to $380 billion in 2023, partly in response to Trump’s pressure. However, this also raised concerns among allies about the stability of the alliance, indirectly weakening U.S. influence in Europe.

Trump also withdrew from multilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Climate Agreement. The TPP aimed to counterbalance China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific through economic cooperation. After the U.S. exit, China championed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which came into effect in 2022. By 2023, China’s trade with ASEAN reached $870 billion, a 15% increase from 2022 (source: China Customs Administration), highlighting RCEP’s role in driving regional economic integration. This suggests that Trump’s unilateralism may have created opportunities for China’s expansion.

Join FOFA NOW

Long-Term Impact Analysis

In trade policy, Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, triggering a U.S.-China trade war. Beginning in 2018, the U.S. levied 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, while China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. As a result, U.S. agricultural exports to China fell from $24 billion in 2017 to $12 billion in 2019 (source: U.S. Department of Commerce). Proponents argued this forced China to make concessions, but critics noted that American consumers bore higher costs and that the trade deficit remained largely unchanged. In the long term, the tariff war accelerated the restructuring of global supply chains, with manufacturing shifting from China to countries like Vietnam and India. Meanwhile, the U.S. adopted protectionist industrial policies, such as subsidies for domestic manufacturing. These developments not only altered U.S.-China economic interactions but also reshaped global trade patterns.

Biden Administration: Continuity and Change

The Biden administration has partially continued Trump’s hardline stance on China but adjusted its strategy. In trade, Biden retained tariffs on Chinese goods but focused on multilateral cooperation, such as the U.S.-EU-Japan technology alliance, to counterbalance China. In technology, the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act allocated $52 billion to bolster the U.S. semiconductor industry (source: White House), addressing China’s technological rise. Militarily, Biden reinforced Indo-Pacific deployments and strengthened the AUKUS alliance (U.S., U.K., and Australia) to deter China. Unlike Trump’s unilateralism, Biden emphasized the value of alliances, but the core objective remained competition rather than cooperation, demonstrating more continuity than change in U.S.-China policy.

China’s Rise: Strengths and Challenges

China’s economy grew from $1.2 trillion in 2000 to $18.6 trillion in 2023 (source: International Monetary Fund, IMF), making it the world’s second-largest economy. Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China expanded its influence via infrastructure investments, though not without controversy. For instance, Sri Lanka, unable to repay its debts, leased the Hambantota Port to China for 99 years, leading Western critics to label this a “debt trap.” China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs countered, calling it “win-win cooperation” and highlighting positive feedback from countries like Pakistan and Cambodia. Academic opinions vary: some studies (e.g., World Bank reports) argue that BRI debt risks are overstated, with most recipient countries maintaining repayment capacity.

Domestic Reforms and Strategic Responses

In response to external pressures, China launched a “dual circulation” strategy emphasizing both domestic demand and foreign trade. Since 2020, China has increased investments in renewable energy, semiconductors, and AI. For example, the country’s domestic chip self-sufficiency rate rose from 15% to 25% in 2023 (source: China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology). This reflects China’s push for technological self-reliance to counter U.S. restrictions. However, long-term challenges persist, including an aging population (projected to reach 400 million people aged 60+ by 2035, source: National Bureau of Statistics) and high debt levels (debt-to-GDP ratio of 317% in 2023, source: IMF).

Technology Competition: The New Frontier of U.S.-China Rivalry

Technology competition has become a focal point of U.S.-China relations. In 2023, China filed 40,000 AI-related patent applications, surpassing the U.S.’s 35,000 (source: World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO). However, the U.S. remains ahead in innovation ecosystems and technology standard-setting. The Biden administration strengthened its position through the CHIPS Act and international technology alliances, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). Meanwhile, China relied on its “Made in China 2025” strategy and state subsidies to advance in quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, and other areas. U.S. export controls on semiconductors (e.g., restrictions on Huawei in 2022) have slowed China’s technological progress, underscoring the struggle for dominance in standards and market control.

Regional Responses

China’s rise has prompted regional countries to adjust their strategies. Japan advanced its “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” initiative, increasing joint military exercises with the U.S., India, and Australia to three in 2023 (source: Japan’s Ministry of Defense). South Korea deepened economic ties with Southeast Asia through its “New Southern Policy,” with exports to ASEAN rising 12% in 2023 (source: Korea International Trade Association). ASEAN, in turn, issued the “Outlook on the Indo-Pacific,” emphasizing multilateralism and neutrality to avoid taking sides. These efforts demonstrate regional countries’ attempts to balance and assert autonomy amid U.S.-China competition.

The Trend Toward a Multipolar World Order

The global order is increasingly shifting toward multipolarity. The European Union has pursued “strategic autonomy,” with its investments in China growing 8% in 2023 (source: EU Statistics Office) as it seeks independence from both the U.S. and China. India, with its robust economic growth (GDP projected at $3.7 trillion in 2023, source: IMF) and military modernization, is emerging as a new force in Asia. This multipolarity adds complexity to global competition, while smaller nations like Vietnam and the Philippines use flexible diplomacy to benefit from the U.S.-China rivalry.

Conclusion: Strategic Choices for the U.S. and China

Trump’s policies enhanced U.S. bargaining power in the short term (e.g., increased NATO spending) but weakened alliance trust in the long term, creating opportunities for China’s rise. The Biden administration has sought to rebuild alliances and focus on technological competition, yet it struggles to reverse the trend toward multipolarity. While China’s power continues to grow, it faces significant domestic and external challenges.

Looking ahead, U.S.-China relations will evolve within a data-driven reality: the U.S. must strengthen multilateral cooperation to maintain influence, while China must balance internal reforms with external pressures. Their interactions will shape the global order, which is unlikely to be a simple zero-sum game.

Join FOFA NOW