Follow us on social

Banning Chinese cars is dangerous and self-defeating

Banning Chinese cars is dangerous and self-defeating

The Biden administration issued the new rule citing national security concerns without providing any evidence

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

In September, the U.S. Commerce Department issued a rule that would result in a de facto ban on all Chinese autos in the United States. Invoking a looming danger to national security, Biden administration policy claims — without offering evidence or considering alternatives — that only complete exclusion of Chinese auto firms could keep Americans safe.

This is only the latest indication that the U.S. political elite, seized with panic over the challenge China poses to American power and prosperity, is creeping toward cutting off the U.S. from Chinese advanced sectors across the board. Not only does this approach drive us further down the road to great power bloc formation, it is likely to seriously damage the long-term global competitiveness of U.S. firms as well.

On this issue as with so many others connected to China, American leaders are identifying genuine problems that do require changes in U.S. laws, regulations, and even governing philosophy. But rather than the careful and pragmatic response that could turn Chinese competition into a force strengthening American business, revitalizing the global economy, and accelerating the global climate transition, the exclusionary U.S. response reinforces a world of a zero-sum competition in which all sides lose.

The rule in question, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles” (15 CFR Part 791), was put forward by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, the same body executing the Biden administration’s blockade on advanced semiconductors against China. It builds on a landmark executive order issued by Trump in 2019 by which the president arrogated to the executive branch the authority to ban any communications technology associated with a “foreign adversary.” In this case, as with most Trump measures against China, the Biden administration chose to maintain the existing restrictions and steadily expand them.

BIS’s rule would prohibit the presence of Chinese-designed or -produced hardware and software in the external connectivity systems of vehicles. This may seem like a niche concern, but McKinsey expects 95 percent of cars sold globally to be connected by 2030, against 50 percent in 2020. Every automaker, regardless of where its headquarters is situated, is transitioning to a profit model based heavily on selling software in connected cars and exploiting the consumer data those connected cars make available. The transition to electric vehicles reinforces these trends because 97 percent are connected.

Chinese automakers have been at the forefront of both these developments. In August, electric and hybrid vehicles accounted for 54 percent of sales in China — compared with 19 percent in the United States. In digital performance, Chinese companies are also eclipsing legacy automakers from the U.S., Japan, and elsewhere, their only real competition coming from U.S. startups like Tesla and Rivian. The Commerce Department rule thus strikes at the heart of Chinese companies’ consumer appeal.

It is also likely to close the last opening for Chinese companies to reach the American market. In 2023, Chinese EV exports to the United States represented only two percent of the total. In May, the Biden administration announced it would increase tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle exports from 27.5 percent to 100 percent, essentially closing the U.S. market to China-based producers. But that left open the possibility of Chinese factories setting up in third countries or even in the United States to sell into the U.S. market. México, with its well-established auto industry, low wages, and free trade to the American market via NAFTA’s successor, the USMCA, would have been particularly attractive. BIS’s rule effectively rules out that possibility.

Significantly, the administration is justifying the rule on national security grounds. As Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said, “Cars today have cameras, microphones, GPS tracking, and other technologies connected to the internet. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how a foreign adversary with access to this information could pose a serious risk to both our national security and the privacy of U.S. citizens.”

The administration does not provide any evidence that the Chinese state has ever forced auto companies to use their technology to gather intelligence or to manipulate their hardware to introduce secret vulnerabilities. It does not consider whether the almost nonexistent U.S. protections on data privacy allow easier routes to gaining such information or whether the weak U.S. regulation of auto connectivity systems would allow foreign adversaries to hack into cars regardless of their national provenance.

It does not weigh whether the Chinese government’s intense interest in cultivating strong global auto brands might discourage behavior that would have a disastrous effect on their public image worldwide. The administration merely notes that Chinese laws notionally allow such abuses and, with a little imagination, we can think up all kinds of scary scenarios.

Such reasoning reflects a sharp shift in policymakers’ thinking in recent years. Previously, they found it easy to tolerate the risks involved with international connection and interdependence; now they evince absolute intolerance of any risk they can dream up, particularly if it can be imagined as involving nefarious intent on China’s part. Not only does this shift lead U.S. leaders to underestimate other kinds of risk, it also causes them to neglect what may be a far more serious threat: large-scale great power conflict.

After all, appealing to national security to ban Chinese vehicles without any evidence of malpractice signals clearly that Washington already considers China to be its enemy. Indeed, on Trump’s last day in office in 2021, the Commerce Department listed China as one of the half dozen officially designated “foreign adversaries” of the United States for purposes of banning communications technology. The Biden administration made no move to reverse the designation.

Chinese observers are getting the message loud and clear. As Li Haidong, a professor at China Foreign Affairs University put it: “In recent years, shoving normal economic activities under the heading of ‘national security’ to smear and suppress China has been a constant practice among U.S. politicians. They’re also using it to manufacture an anti-China consensus among the public, laying a foundation for increasingly extreme policies against China.”

Each new exclusionary measure deepens disillusion on the Chinese side and further fragments the global economy, exacerbating the core zero-sum pressures that caused the collapse of U.S.–China relations in the first place.

Encouraging globe-spanning conflict is not the only consequence. Excluding Chinese companies from the American market on national security grounds also precludes any path to restoring market access. Apparently the Biden administration did not entertain the possibility of creating safeguards that Chinese companies could in principle meet to address the genuine concerns about hacking and data security. That means that U.S. automakers will never have to confront the challenge of their more advanced Chinese competitors, which may undermine the long-term viability of the U.S. automotive industry itself.

U.S. car companies, which refused to invest in electric vehicle production for decades, now say they need more time to make the transition. The same companies that spent hundreds of millions of dollars undermining government proposals to spur the EV transition complain that China’s efforts to develop the new industry were unfair — though they are happy to take the similar subsidies and preferences that the U.S. government is now offering. The same companies that fell behind Chinese auto firms’ digital innovation have discovered national security concerns that force them to support removing those firms from the American market.

There are better ways to handle the challenge of Chinese competition, in part by studying China’s response to an even more difficult competitive landscape in the late 20th century. As it integrated into the global economy, China faced corporations from the rich countries that dominated their sectors and left few openings to Chinese producers. Rather than excluding foreign businesses, Chinese leaders embraced their presence in the Chinese market to gain access to advanced technology and know-how, and to exert competitive pressure on Chinese businesses. However, Chinese leaders also modulated the otherwise overwhelming force of foreign competition, using the techniques of managed trade, industrial policy, and state-structured market competition to catch up before fully opening the domestic market.

U.S. automakers are largely responsible for their own uncompetitive position, but the auto industry is essential to jobs and innovation in the American economy and cannot be sacrificed. Yet absolute protection from Chinese competition virtually guarantees that U.S. firms will fall further behind and will become increasingly irrelevant in global auto production. The fear of China’s presence in American society is not only leading us into international conflict, it is simultaneously undermining the core sources of U.S. strength.


Top image credit: Tada Images / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

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.