Follow us on social

google cta
Fp4a-panel-

How do you talk to an 'existential threat' (China)?

Lawmakers at a Democratic foreign policy conference today bemoaned escalating and useless rhetoric against Beijing on Capitol Hill.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

China has been the chief foreign policy and national security obsession of the 118th Congress. Members have introduced over 300 pieces of legislation aimed at confronting the rise of Beijing and created the hawkish “Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.” 

As the journalist Ed Luce, who moderated a panel on US-China relations during Foreign Policy for America’s annual Leadership Summit on Monday, noted, it is one of the few areas of bipartisanship in an increasingly polarized Congress. 

The four members of the House of Representatives who participated on the panel offered words of caution to their colleagues, warning that heightened rhetoric could leave Washington in a perilous predicament. “It’s really important that we remember, particularly when rhetoric continues to heat up, that, God forbid, we ever had to go to war with China, it is mutually assured economic destruction,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich). “At the end of the day, a war will be a disaster for them and certainly for us.” 

If anything, according to Rep. Andy Kim, who sits on the select committee, the increase in tension between the two largest economies in the world should incentivize U.S. officials to engage with their counterparts even more. “When the chairperson or when someone else on [the select] committee talks about how China is an existential threat to the United States. That's a real problem,” remarked Kim (D-N.J.) “When you call someone or something an existential threat, how do you have a conversation? How do you have engagement? How do you have diplomacy?”

Luce noted that efforts to calm tensions have so far not been particularly effective, pointing to a recent Pew Research poll that indicates that four in ten Americans consider China to be an enemy, up thirteen points from when a similar poll was conducted last year. Kim called that polling data “a huge problem,” and Rep. Veronica Escobar said it was “very disconcerting.” 

All of the members acknowledged that Beijing does pose a significant challenge to the U.S. and the Chinese government had not seemed particularly interested in constructive engagement either, but maintained that the response should not be to treat conflict as inevitable.  “Some of the challenges I’ve seen, especially being on the select committee (...) is how reactionary we’ve become in terms of our foreign policy, especially when it comes to China,” said Kim noting what he saw as a bipartisan overreaction to the Chinese spy balloon and legislation aimed at banning TikTok.

One consistent theme throughout the panel was that there may be substantial ways in which Washington can and should compete with China, but those potential U.S. policies  are too often drowned out by legislation that is only intended to antagonize Beijing. “We have not had an immediate pressing reason in my opinion, to vote on anything related to China,” so far in this Congress, said Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) She argued that all of the bills aimed at countering the CCP were messaging bills aimed at painting opponents as soft on China and “a lot of colleagues are trying to neutralize a CCP or Chinese attack in the electoral context by wrapping themselves in the blanket of bipartisanship” on the issue. 


Image: Office of Rep. Andy Kim / Twitter.
google cta
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Geo-kleptocracy and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Global Crises

“As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust, for a long period of time. … We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” said President Donald Trump the morning after U.S. forces invaded Caracas and carried off the indicted autocrat Nicolàs Maduro.

The invasion of Venezuela on Jan. 3 did not result in regime change but rather a deal coerced at the barrel of a gun. Maduro’s underlings may stay in power as long as they open the country’s moribund petroleum industry to American oil majors. Government repression still rules the day, simply without Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Russian icebreakers
Top photo credit: Russian nuclear powered Icebreaker Yamal during removal of manned drifting station North Pole-36. August 2009. (Wikimedia Commmons)

Trump's Greenland, Canada threats reflect angst over Russia shipping

North America

Like it or not, Russia is the biggest polar bear in the arctic, which helps to explain President Trump’s moves on Greenland.

However, the Biden administration focused on it too. And it isn’t only about access to resources and military positioning, but also about shipping. And there, the Russians are some way ahead.

keep readingShow less
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

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.