Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1554182810-scaled

How Biden can beat Trump on China

Biden will lose the argument on China if he tries to run to Trump's right.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

In a story first reported by Axios, the Trump campaign revealed plans to make Joe Biden’s purportedly “soft” posture towards China a central part of its 2020 reelection message. The decision is based on internal polling data purporting to show growing public anger with China due to the coronavirus outbreak, a claim consistent with outside polling.

A preview of this new message can be seen in a campaign ad released days prior to the Axios story, which features a montage of clips showing Biden interacting with people of Chinese descent, including a toast of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and closes with the slogan “Biden: Dangerous for America.” The New York Times described the ad as “xenophobic.”

The Biden campaign’s response to the Axios story leaves the impression that it will counter this line of attack by, in part, running to Trump’s right on China. Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesperson, told Axios that Trump’s blundered response to the outbreak came “in no small part because he disregarded warnings from a multitude of U.S. experts and bought China’s spin about successful containment.”

“Who publicly urged him not to take China’s word on this?” Bates asked. “Joe Biden,” he said, adding, “Donald Trump highlighting China is like the owner of a propane depot saying ‘I can’t wait to play with fireworks.’”

At first glance, this seems to be a slam-dunk argument, and indeed one that Biden has already laid the groundwork for. Although Trump has been the most antagonistic president on China in modern history, there are several obvious, rhetorically-attractive ways in which Trump weakens the United States’ hand.

At home, Trump’s incompetence, corruption, and divisiveness all corrode America’s political institutions and democratic culture, critical tools in a competition with an authoritarian, one-party state. His economic agenda, which has prioritized tax cuts for the rich over improved access to health care, more affordable education, and investments in infrastructure, undermines the long-term vitality of American society, and leads us to fall behind China on technological matters like artificial intelligence and 5G.

Abroad, Trump’s kneejerk rejection of multilateralism and poor treatment of U.S. allies make it difficult to mobilize a coalition that can balance against China or extract meaningful concessions. (Biden has called China “the big winner” of the Phase 1 trade deal.)

Trump’s abdication of U.S. leadership in international institutions cedes the field to China, and his disinterest in human rights drains American soft power and allows China to get away with abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Biden can effectively and clearly articulate this overall point by noting the damning fact that intellectuals in China view Trump as “Beijing's best asset.”

Despite the intuitive attractiveness of this approach, it could potentially be a misstep to pursue it. By embracing the ethic of competition, Biden legitimizes Trump’s broader argument, and allows him to set the terms of debate in language that he is ultimately far more comfortable operating in: nationalism. Biden is not adept enough to out-nationalist America’s foremost nationalist, and would only empower Trump to further inflame anti-Asian racism, something that has already led to a rise in hate crimes and discrimination.

Biden also has unique vulnerabilities that will hamstring this argument. The former Vice President will be constantly required to answer for the fact that Xi Jinping rose to power, and dramatically expanded China’s international influence, under his watch and while his son was sitting on a Chinese corporate board. Whereas President Obama, and thus Biden, accepted Xi at his word when he stood in the White House rose garden and promised not to militarize the South China Sea, Trump intuitively understood the need to respond with sternness and force, allowing him to claim that he alone has the grit required to hold China accountable for the coronavirus.

Biden will, of course, supplement any attacks from Trump’s right with an emphasis on the need to cooperate with China where the two countries share common interests, most obviously on infectious disease prevention and climate change. While nice in theory, in practice this provides Biden with little upside, insofar as Trump can easily frame it as representative of the same type of liberal wishful thinking that allowed the relationship to become so unbalanced in the first place, something Trump himself had to come in and clean up.

The inevitable attacks that will follow Biden’s calls for cooperation will also be effective because they will be, to some extent, accurate. The tragic reality is that little evidence can support the claim that Xi Jinping’s China is actually interested in cooperating with the United States, even where it may be in China’s apparent interest to do so. Dramatic political changes that have taken place under Xi have created a domestic political environment where, according to one Chinese scholar, defending China and pushing back against the United States “becomes a thing of political correctness” for Chinese policymakers and diplomats that will “win them greater career success domestically.”

This is supplemented by the emergence of a hawkish bipartisan consensus here at home, and especially the overzealous, conspiratorial hostility emanating from parts of the Republican Party, to further solidify the view in Beijing that it is in a zero-sum struggle with the United States, where the only way for it to protect its interests is to accumulate as much power as possible, and wield it where necessary. This is evident in China’s unabashed construction of a global propaganda network, use of underhanded tactics to cultivate influence in international institutions, and willingness to exert leverage over and punish states that oppose China's interests. Although there are undoubtedly those in China who disagree with Xi's direction, they have had little success limiting these excesses to date.

Yet, being realistic about the prospects for cooperation need not necessitate Biden’s embrace of competition. Biden should instead be characteristically frank with the American people: The United States can and should not hide from the fact that the two countries have fundamentally conflicting interests, portending a relationship likely to get far worse and go through a number of dangerous crises in the near-future.

Such an admission would free Biden to run on a message that will prove far more effectual, avoiding many of the pitfalls of running to Trump’s right while hedging with calls for cooperation: Donald Trump is the polar opposite of the type of leader who you want to manage such a volatile and precarious relationship. Trump has neither the the capacity to understand just how high the stakes with China are, nor the temperament and discretion required to deftly manage the relationship without allowing it to spiral out of control.

What the U.S.-China relationship needs most right now is not a warrior-president who relishes the fight, but rather a competent and tempered bureaucratic manager who can do the quiet, behind-the-scenes work required to build coalitions capable of bringing China to the negotiating table, and who does so not out of a zeal for crushing the new Evil Empire, but because it is necessary to create a stable world order. Through this line, any argument that Trump makes about Biden’s apparent weakness can be countered in a way that exposes and emphasizes the administration’s incompetence and strategic bankruptcy, without falling into the trap of trying to outmaneuver Trump in his own domain.


Photo credit: Michael F. Hiatt / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.