In the coming weeks, the Trump administration is expected to unveil its latest National Security and Defense Strategies, a move that has Washington and the world watching closely. These documents, according to The American Conservative, will offer the clearest window yet into how the United States plans to confront the growing challenge posed by China. The stakes are high: America’s approach to China is at a crossroads, with the world’s two largest economies locked in a contest that touches everything from nuclear weapons to rare earth minerals, from artificial islands in the Pacific to the future of Taiwan.
The first Trump administration, back in 2017, marked a decisive shift in U.S. policy towards China. Gone was the era of engagement—when American leaders hoped that economic ties would moderate Beijing’s ambitions. In its place came a period of what the magazine calls “unbridled great power competition.” Fast forward to December 2025, and the second Trump administration’s China playbook is still evolving. Some of its moves are abrupt and forceful, such as leaning on Panama to push Chinese influence out of the canal or imposing so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Others are more strategic: the announcement of a new “Golden Dome” missile defense system, the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia, and efforts to coordinate with allies to reduce technological dependencies on China.
Yet, as The American Conservative notes, President Donald Trump’s instincts remain deeply transactional. He’s been willing to trade tariffs for trade deals, offer advanced U.S. chips in exchange for Chinese rare earths, and even limit engagement with Taiwan to curry favor with Beijing’s leadership. The October trade agreement between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, for instance, was hailed as a step towards commercial stability—but it’s a deal that must be renewed every year, leaving both sides on edge and the broader relationship subject to the whims of geopolitics.
So what does an “America First” China strategy really look like in this new era? Advocates argue it requires three things: balancing against China without seeking its defeat, embracing flexible and pragmatic policymaking, and investing heavily to maintain America’s technological superiority and industrial self-reliance. The goal isn’t to restore U.S. dominance in East Asia—an outcome many experts now see as unrealistic—but to prevent China from dominating the region while protecting core American interests.
“China is no longer a rising power—it is fully risen, with greater economic, technological, and military might than the Soviet Union ever had,” the magazine asserts. The United States, it argues, cannot hope to regain dominance in China’s neighborhood. Instead, America should pursue a “peace through strength” approach that sustains a balance of power at a safer distance from mainland China, where U.S. power projection remains viable.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in January 2025, put it bluntly: “The world is multipolar.” In this messier landscape, the U.S. must inject flexibility into its alliances, encouraging partners to take more responsibility for their own defense. The thinking goes that since U.S. allies need American support more than the reverse, a subtle pullback would prompt them to increase defense spending and deepen cooperation with each other. The U.S. shouldn’t panic if allies seek their own accommodations with China—sometimes, poor relations between U.S. partners and Beijing can actually harm American interests.
Ideology, too, takes a back seat in this vision. The article suggests the U.S. can’t afford to build “coalitions of democracies” if doing so alienates potential partners or does little to shift the balance of power. Instead, America should cooperate where it makes sense, even with non-democracies or countries that sit on the geopolitical fence—think India or much of Southeast Asia. The biggest potential swing state? Russia. While nearly four years of war in Ukraine have shown the limits of the China-Russia partnership, a less assertive U.S. posture in Europe could, over time, nudge Moscow away from Beijing’s orbit.
But the thorniest issue in U.S.-China relations remains Taiwan. The magazine is unsentimental: “It is not vital to the regional balance of power.” That doesn’t mean abandoning Taiwan or ceasing efforts to deter a Chinese invasion. Rather, the U.S. should do everything possible to lower the risk of war in the Taiwan Strait, recognizing that the costs of a direct military confrontation could be catastrophic. “An America First China strategy places as much emphasis on assuring China that it does not need to invade… as it does the kind of military deterrence Washington obsesses over,” the article argues.
Meanwhile, China’s military ambitions are growing at a pace that alarms many in Washington. As reported by a Washington, D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst in The American Conservative, China is now the fastest-growing nuclear power in the world, building at least 100 new nuclear weapons per year. Robert Peters, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, warns that China “is on track to reach strategic parity with the U.S. in 10 years.” For decades, the U.S. enjoyed nuclear superiority, but China’s breakneck buildup—coupled with its economic might as the “factory of the world”—has changed the calculus.
China’s ambitions don’t stop at nuclear weapons. The country is developing a nuclear-capable stealth bomber that could strike North American targets without refueling. Its military is building artificial islands in the South China Sea, threatening neighbors’ exclusive economic zones, and, as the analyst notes, “squelching even the faintest hints of freedom in Hong Kong and across China.” President Xi Jinping, the architect of this “Chinese century,” appears determined to make Taiwan the centerpiece of his legacy.
All of this, according to the foreign affairs analyst, means the status quo is not enough. The U.S. must shore up deterrence—not by drawing down its nuclear arsenal, but by building and modernizing it. “The status quo, it is clear, will not suffice,” the analyst writes. The implication is stark: America must be prepared for a long-term contest, one that demands both military readiness and strategic patience.
Economic competition is another front in this rivalry. The magazine contends that tariffs should be viewed as a tool, not an end in themselves. The real key to success lies in domestic innovation and industrial policy—maintaining technological leads over China in crucial sectors and eliminating supply chain vulnerabilities that could give Beijing leverage. Export controls and trade deals play a role, but nothing substitutes for reliable production at home. As the article puts it, “If the U.S. cannot innovate at home… we will lose the tech competition.”
In the end, an America First China strategy accepts the permanence of Chinese power and seeks a balance grounded in hard-nosed pragmatism. It means making tough choices about which commitments are truly vital, building coalitions based on shared interests rather than ideology, and investing in the domestic foundations of American strength. The world may be messier and more dangerous than before, but the path forward, as these thinkers see it, requires clarity, flexibility, and an unflinching focus on the national interest.
