U.S.-China Relations: Misconceptions vs. Reality
Economic leverage has become the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
The negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war have prompted a range of reactions regarding the broader direction of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, with particular attention on China and Taiwan. Many view this as part of a broader realignment of foreign policy, defined not by shared values but by the principle of stronger nations asserting dominance over weaker ones.
At the center of these concerns are President Trump’s framing of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, along with preemptive concessions to Russia in negotiating a settlement.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach signals a broader shift toward appeasement, with some warning that Trump is undermining democratic values and aligning with autocratic regimes to reshape the global order into spheres of influence. However, while his attention to Greenland and the Panama Canal suggests an interest in great-power spheres of influence, this in no way indicates a disregard for U.S. strategic and economic interests beyond the Western Hemisphere.
Trump’s political opponents often point to his stance on Russia as evidence that he will appease China, prioritizing a trade deal that grants him a political "win" while sacrificing long-term strategic interests, ultimately paving the way for Taiwan to fall under Beijing’s control. The argument is that Trump’s relationship with Xi Jinping will follow the same pattern as his dealings with Vladimir Putin—a transactional approach that, in their view, risks compromising U.S. strategic interests in favor of personal diplomacy and short term trade concessions.
Such a conclusion on the direction of U.S.- China policy is flawed and contradicts Trump's core motivations, the actions of his administration, the hawkish national security team he has assembled, and—specific to Taiwan—ignores the immense economic and strategic consequences the U.S. would face if China gained control of the island and the world’s most valuable technological asset, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp (TSMC).
Transactional Diplomacy: Trump’s Global Playbook
While Trump’s worldview may emphasize "might makes right," reducing his foreign policy to this alone is overly simplistic. A broader understanding of Trump's approach to policy—both foreign and domestic— comes from examining his core motivations. Two consistent driving forces shape his stance on various issues.
First, personal standing and public perception play a crucial role. Trump views his success through measurable outcomes—elections, polls, economic indicators, and stock market performance—assessing how events enhance his image as a leader, businessman, and historic figure.
Second, Trump sees the world through a transactional lens. Whether dealing with allies, adversaries, or economic policies, his perspective is shaped by whether he believes he—or the U.S.—is getting a good deal or being taken advantage of. This deal making mentality influences everything from trade negotiations to military alliances, often reducing complex relationships to a balance sheet of perceived wins and losses.
While this approach risks prioritizing short-term transactional gains over long-term strategic considerations, there are indications of broader connectivity in Trump’s policies. His foreign policy reflects a deliberate effort to recalibrate U.S. global positioning based on economic leverage and bargaining power. Ceding Taiwan and TSMC to China would directly contradict this strategy, representing an extraordinary strategic loss that would severely weaken U.S. economic power while damaging Trump’s historical legacy and personal standing.
Rather than pursuing a purely isolationist or authoritarian-aligned foreign policy, Trump’s approach appears to center on redefining alliances and adversarial relationships through the lens of economic and geopolitical advantage. His rhetoric and tactics often create uncertainty, but they also serve as leverage in negotiations.
It is noteworthy that Trump’s aggressive rhetoric is not uniformly directed at all of the U.S.’s long-term and closest allies. While his administration has frequently expressed dissatisfaction with Canada and European nations, Trump has simultaneously fostered and maintained good relationships with two of the U.S.’s most critical allies: Japan and Israel.
This contradicts the narrative that Trump is systematically turning against all traditional allies in favor of autocratic regimes. Instead, his approach suggests a recalibration of alliances, where he applies pressure on allies he perceives as benefiting disproportionately from U.S. trade or security guarantees.
However, even Trump’s staunch support for Israel underscores his transactional mindset. His recent claim that the U.S. should own Gaza is a prime example of this perspective. In Trump’s deal-making worldview, decades of U.S. military and political support for Israel equate to a form of investment—one for which he likely believes the U.S. is entitled to compensation. In this context, suggesting that Gaza should effectively become a U.S. asset follows the same logic as striking a mineral rights deal with Ukraine. This reflects Trump's mentality, where foreign policy is often framed in terms of ownership, transactions, and leverage.
Ukraine-Russia Calculus: Strategy, Leverage, and Deals
Trump's comments blaming Ukraine for the war and accusing President Zelensky of being a dictator surely to some extent stem from his personal history with Zelensky—specifically, the infamous phone call that led to his first impeachment—as well as his transactional mindset, which questions what the U.S. is getting in return for its financial and military support to Ukraine. This also explains his pursuit of a mineral rights deal with Ukraine, he simply sees U.S. aid as a direct monetary cost that should yield a tangible return.
Arguably, this mineral rights deal could enhance Ukraine’s security by giving the U.S. a vested economic interest in the country's stability. By having "skin in the game," the U.S. would be more incentivized to ensure Ukraine's long-term security and sovereignty.
The broader concept of standing up to Russian aggression and defending international law is too abstract for Trump. His focus is not on upholding global norms, but rather on assessing whether supporting Ukraine advances U.S. national interests and what the U.S. is getting in return—particularly when weighed against the risks of escalating tensions with a nuclear power.
Trump likely views Russia as a “no-cost” relationship, where Putin flatters his self-image without demanding much directly from Trump in return. Unlike China, Russia is a diminished power that does not pose a comparable strategic threat to U.S. interests. Its conventional military strength has been severely weakened—to the point of needing North Korean soldiers to fight in Ukraine—highlighting limitations to its ability to project power well beyond its borders.
Trump’s approach to negotiating an end to the war—bolstering Putin’s standing and treating Russia as an equal—could be seen as a strategy to offer Putin a face-saving exit. However, this approach sends the wrong message, signaling tolerance for unprovoked military aggression. While personal diplomacy may aid negotiations, it is a mistake to imply that military aggression against a sovereign state can be justified or will be tolerated. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s approach to Putin serves a purpose beyond negotiating an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, and is part of a broader strategy to weaken the bond between Russia and China.
Misplaced Concerns About China Appeasement
President Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war does not indicate a similar strategy toward China. The early actions of the new Trump administration clearly indicate a hawkish stance toward China, not a policy of appeasement. Trump has already imposed an initial 10% tariff on all Chinese imports followed by an additional 10% tariff effective March 4, taken steps to eliminate the de minimis trade exemption that benefits discount Chinese retailers like Temu and Shein, and recently threatened additional restrictions on semiconductor sales to China.
Additionally, the Trump administration recently issued fact sheet on foreign investment and a separate memo America First Trade Policy not only reinforce a hardline stance on China but also highlight the administration’s focus on strengthening U.S. industry and securing its supply chains to mitigate national security risks posed by overreliance on China.
Some point to Trump’s comments on TikTok and his efforts to broker a sale as evidence that he may be soft on China. While I believe downplaying the platform’s use as a tool in China’s digital propaganda war against the U.S. is a grave mistake, this stance to a large extent reflects Trump’s belief that TikTok’s was helpful in his reelection efforts rather than a broader representation of his China policy intensions.
For years, the U.S. has tolerated a lopsided relationship in which China has restricted access to its domestic market, stolen intellectual property and trade secrets, subsidize Chinese companies that undercut on price U.S. competitors, and engaged in an ongoing digital propaganda war against the U.S. At the same, China has also aggressively expanded its regional ambitions unchecked, including constructing militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, threatening key international shipping lanes.
Yet, these ongoing realities—representing actual Chinese aggression—have been tolerated by many who now voice alarm over Trump’s foreign policy. These concerns have led to oversimplified conclusions, such as drawing a straight line from Trump’s stance on Russia to an increased risk of conceding Taiwan to China. Such assumptions contradict his administration’s historically aggressive stance on China and overlook, as I detailed in my post Taiwan is Arrakis, the critical strategic value of Taiwan and TSMC to both the U.S. and the global economy.
Trump’s comments threating tariffs on semiconductors imports from Taiwan are not a sign of reduced support for Taiwan, but rather consistent with Trump’s transactional mindset. To the contrary his administration is already sending symbolic, but important signals that Chinese military aggression against Taiwan will not be tolerated. For example, a joint statement following a recent meeting between President Trump and Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and clearly stated strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion.
Additionally, the U.S. State Department recently removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” from its fact sheet on U.S.-Taiwan relations—a significant policy shift that prompted a predictable response from China.
Strong support for Taiwan aligns with current U.S. interests, given the strategic importance of TSMC and is consistent with Trump’s foreign policy approach where U.S. economic leverage is central to advancing U.S. national security interests. As discussed in my post China-Taiwan Unfinished Business, understanding Trump’s transactional mindset and negotiation tactics provides better insight into what he is likely attempting to achieve.
As with many of Trump’s statements, it is often more revealing to observe his actions rather than his words. The National Security team assembled includes prominent China hawks in key positions, which provides a more reliable indication of the administration’s stance on Taiwan and China. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Trump would pursue policies that increase the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan—an event that would bring significant damage to the U.S. economy and weaken American influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Concerns over semiconductor tariffs are also likely overstated. U.S. companies dominate semiconductor imports, and such remarks likely aim to promote domestic advanced semiconductor manufacturing. While this is a sound strategic goal, it will take years to achieve. In the meantime, U.S. reliance on TSMC for advanced semiconductor production will remain unchanged in the medium term.
However, President Trump’s comments have had some tangible impact, particularly his call for Taiwan to increase its defense spending and prioritize boosting its military capabilities. Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te has responded by committing to greater investments in the U.S. and proposing a “special budget” to raise Taiwan’s defense spending to over 3% of GDP.
An X-factor that could impact U.S.-China policy and has raised concerns is the influence of Elon Musk. Given Tesla’s business interests in China, Musk has consistently avoided criticizing China’s authoritarian regime, repeating China’s view that Taiwan is a fundamental part of China. As outlined in my post China-Taiwan Unfinished Business, this characterization is historically inaccurate. Musk’s comments suggest he views Chinese control of Taiwan as inevitable, carefully avoiding any direct challenge to the China’s stance.
However, Musk’s silence on China is not unique. Apple CEO Tim Cook, whose company is even more reliant on China than Tesla, has similarly refrained from public criticism. The key unknown is what Musk says in private. While his broader business interests align with the U.S., his business interest in China raises concerns about whether his advice to Trump in some circumstances would prioritize his own financial considerations over long term U.S. strategic interests.
That said, Musk is an important but singular voice in Trump’s orbit. There are numerous influential figures in both Musk’s and Trump’s circles who recognize the strategic threat posed by China and are committed to policies that counter and reverse past economic and geopolitical imbalances. While Musk’s influence is notable, it is unlikely to singularly dictate Trump’s China policy.
Conclusion
Trump’s foreign policy often appears chaotic, with less than clear strategic goals, largely because it is driven more by transactional deal-making than by ideology. His approach to Russia and Ukraine, though controversial, reflects a broader pattern of assessing relationships based on perceived costs and benefits rather than traditional geopolitical strategy.
Despite concerns about his stance on Russia, there is little evidence to suggest Trump will adopt a conciliatory approach to China. In fact, certain aspects of his efforts to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict could expand U.S. leverage and signal a tougher stance. Improving ties with Putin could serve as a strategic move to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Additionally, securing a mineral rights deal with Ukraine would also be a means to reduce U.S. reliance on China for some critical minerals such as rare earth metals. Ultimately, while Trump’s foreign policy may often seem highly transactional, it does not indicate a shift toward appeasing China.