China dominance – A columnist argues that U.S. decisions since 2025 have undercut Asia alliances—potentially giving China room to grow into regional dominance.
A key question hovering over Washington’s role in Asia is whether U.S.. missteps are creating space for China to grow from a rising power into a regional hegemon.. The concern is not that Beijing has suddenly changed its ambitions. but that the United States—through decisions in science. industrial policy. diplomacy. and war—may be weakening the coalition that has historically constrained China.
In 2023, the writer behind the argument cautioned that fears of Chinese regional dominance were overstated, though not entirely without basis.. The logic then was that many of China’s neighbors did not want to be dominated. and the United States also had incentives to prevent that outcome.. Because major powers typically balance threats rather than accept them. the column concluded that an overt bid for hegemony by China was likely to fail—and that Beijing would be unwise to attempt it.
That argument becomes more complicated when the focus shifts to the trajectory since 2025 and the role of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.. The writer says there is a pattern of actions that. intentionally or not. could push the region in the direction Washington has tried to resist: China gaining an advantage in its immediate neighborhood at the United States’ expense.
One of the most striking claims involves policy toward American science and innovation.. The writer argues Trump has gone after pillars of the U.S.. scientific establishment. including cutting funding tied to the National Science Foundation. removing members of an advisory board. dismissing experienced scientists across dozens of government agencies. and taking steps described as a war against leading universities.. In the writer’s view. these moves amount to unilateral disarmament at a time when China is doing the opposite—investing to strengthen the capabilities that underpin economic productivity and military power.
The argument also extends into industrial and clean-energy policy.. The writer contends the administration has ceded leadership in emerging green technologies—such as solar and wind power. advanced batteries. and electric vehicles—while doubling down on older. fossil-fuel-based technologies and the internal combustion engine.. The piece points to a potential policy contradiction as demand for electricity rises with the spread of data centers. arguing that public resources are being spent in ways that the writer describes as delaying or preventing wind farm development.
Trade policy is portrayed as a second lever where U.S.. strategy may have worked against the intended effect.. The writer says Trump imposed tariffs on China and others in what was described as a poorly designed and seemingly random way.. The policy was then met with retaliation involving refined rare earth minerals—materials the writer notes are used in advanced technologies like computers.. The piece adds that the tariffs were also described as illegal. undercutting their chance of achieving the goals Trump claimed. including efforts to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
Beyond economics, the column argues the tariff approach also harmed relationships with key partners in Asia.. It describes bullying certain allies into pledging investment in the U.S.. economy even if they did not want to make those commitments.. The writer frames the damage as more than political irritation: reducing allies’ willingness or ability to invest in defense could also weaken the very balancing effort Washington has long encouraged.
Diplomatic staffing and engagement, too, are raised as evidence of a loosening grip on Asia.. The writer says there has been little effort to build warmer ties. citing a spat involving India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and pointing to a broader pattern of U.S.. ambassadorial vacancies.. The piece lists a range of countries—including Australia. Myanmar. Cambodia. Fiji. Indonesia. Laos. Malaysia. the Marshall Islands. Papua New Guinea. Samoa. the Solomon Islands. and Vietnam—where it says there are currently no serving U.S.. ambassadors.. In several cases, it notes that even nominations have not been filled.
International organizations are another element of the argument.. The writer says Trump and Marco Rubio have pulled the United States out of dozens of international organizations. narrowing America’s role in the forums where rules and norms are negotiated.. While acknowledging that some institutions may not be essential, the piece argues that U.S.. absence sends a signal of disinterest in working with others.. It also suggests longer-term economic friction. with businesses facing regulatory environments shaped by others when Washington is no longer in the room.
From Asia policy and industrial strategy, the writer turns to the war with Iran as a major, cascading distraction.. The piece argues the conflict consumes attention and advisory time. especially at a moment when the president and his team were supposed to focus on China’s rise in Asia.. The writer notes that Trump is the fourth U.S.. president to take office promising a China focus. only to end up in a Middle East quagmire. and says the administration’s choices have left little room for others to carry the blame.
Operationally, the writer claims the war has undermined U.S.. military posture in Asia.. The piece asserts that the U.S.. Navy currently has three aircraft carrier battle groups in the Middle East and only one in East Asia. with those carriers in the Gulf remaining on station for months and requiring port time afterward.. It also argues that the Pentagon has been using Tomahawks. Patriot missiles. and other advanced systems quickly. leaving allies in Asia less protected.
Equally important to the writer is the way the war was planned and executed.. The piece argues longtime allies were not consulted in advance. and that the administration did not consider how attacking Iran again might affect partners worldwide.. The consequences. the writer says. are severe: higher gas prices in the Philippines. Japan. South Korea. and elsewhere. and lower growth forecasts.. It also points to economic and human effects from fertilizer shortages and reduced crop yields attributed to the conflict.
All of those points are tied back to credibility.. In the writer’s framing, allies weigh not just strength and shared interests, but also whether U.S.. leaders appear competent and capable of following through.. The piece argues that the administration’s approach so far would make partners in Asia—and potentially elsewhere—hesitate to take U.S.. advice or believe American pledges.
The column also suggests China benefits from the contrast.. It argues Beijing can portray itself as benign or. at minimum. as less destructive than Washington in terms of bombing foreign countries. assassinating leaders. and destabilizing the global economy.. The writer adds that a Gallup poll recently reported China is more popular globally than the United States. calling it a development that should concern Americans.
Taken together. the writer says the cumulative effect is to cast doubt on how secure the U.S.-led balancing arrangement in Asia may really be.. While there are structural reasons to believe a coalition could endure. the piece argues it could still fail if key alliance members—and especially the putative alliance leader—prove incompetent.. The writer stresses that many Asian countries still do not want to accommodate China. but suggests the possibility of distancing from the United States may be less remote than earlier assessments assumed.
At the same time, the writer resists a fully pessimistic conclusion.. Defeatism, the piece warns, can become self-fulfilling.. It argues Washington still holds more leverage than Beijing. but it also laments that the United States’ “hand” is not being played by people who understand the strategic rules and the value of each move.
For the writer, the central concern is not simply what China might do, but what the United States has done—and continues to do—that could leave China more room to reshape the regional order.
Trump foreign policy China dominance in Asia U.S. alliances Iran war impact tariffs and rare earths Rubio foreign policy Asia diplomacy