In Washington’s discourse on China, terms like “containment,” “confrontation,” and “derisking” have become the prevailing narrative. Since launching a tariff war against China in 2018, Trump has ushered U.S.-China relations into a clear period of strategic rivalry. To many, Trumpism represents an irrational hawkishness, as if Trump’s sole aim is to “crush China.” Yet, a closer look at the rhythm and underlying logic of his policies reveals an overlooked reality: Trump’s goal isn’t to trigger China’s immediate collapse but to keep it bleeding and off-balance under long-term pressure—unable to challenge U.S. dominance, yet not spiraling into chaos.
The U.S. Should Not Bear the Burden of China’s Collapse
First and foremost, we must face a stark truth: China’s collapse would not be a victory for the U.S. but a risk. This risk manifests on three fronts:
- Geopolitical Risk: A China plunged into deep economic crisis and social disorder wouldn’t necessarily become weak and manageable. Instead, backed by its massive economic scale and industrial capacity, it might turn to extreme nationalism, potentially sparking external conflicts to deflect domestic pressure. A desperate gamble to upend the Western Pacific order could emerge under such conditions.
- Global Economic Risk: As the world’s second-largest economy and largest manufacturing hub, China’s collapse would disrupt supply chains, spike energy and commodity prices, roil global stock markets, and unleash a new wave of inflation—impacts from which even the U.S. would not be immune.
- Governance Risk: If China’s internal economic and political collapse drives it toward extremism, it would heighten uncertainty in U.S.-China relations, making it harder for the U.S. to exert influence through diplomacy or deterrence.
Thus, while the U.S. and China are locked in “strategic rivalry,” this contest is best maintained with a “fight-but-don’t-break” tempo.
Trump’s Tempo-Control Strategy
Trump’s China policy often appears aggressive, even emotional, on the surface. In reality, it’s closer to a strategy of gradual attrition rather than outright destruction.
From 2018 to 2020, U.S. measures against China escalated steadily but always left room for maneuver:
- The tariff war didn’t max out overnight but rolled out incrementally, leaving space for negotiations.
- The tech war targeted Huawei, ZTE, and advanced chips, not entire industries.
- Financial restrictions focused on key firms and capital channels, without abruptly cutting China off from the dollar system.
- Diplomatically, while reshaping Indo-Pacific strategy, the U.S. kept open channels with China.
This approach served three purposes:
- To keep China from collapsing while steadily weakening it, sapping its growth momentum in global competition without allowing full decoupling or transformation.
- To buy time for the U.S. and its allies to restructure supply chains, reducing China’s strategic leverage and ability to hold others hostage.
- To force Beijing’s policymakers into a defensive posture, shifting from proactive “global rise” to reactive “crisis management.”
Trump isn’t a Cold War crusader bent on ideological purges but a pragmatic leader executing a deal-driven national interest strategy. He doesn’t seek a systemic showdown but a long-term game where the opponent stays off-balance while the U.S. controls the tempo.
Managing the Powder Keg: The Political Risks of China’s Collapse
This “weaken-but-don’t-destroy” logic is familiar in traditional geopolitics. Historically, great powers dealing with adversarial regimes armed with nuclear capabilities, vast populations, or geographic advantages often opt to preserve their “functional existence” rather than dismantle them entirely. In America’s eyes today, China isn’t an enemy to be dismissed but a high-risk condition to be managed.
Should China’s economy collapse entirely, nationalist forces would likely seize control of the state apparatus, becoming the dominant political force. Without political checks, public discourse outlets, or diverse channels, this path would quickly morph into a tool for external confrontation. For Trump, this is the least desirable outcome: his voters want triumph and order, not chaos and war.
Conclusion: Trump’s True Goal—A Controlled Rival
Trump’s China policy isn’t about annihilating China but managing its behavior. This control doesn’t hinge on transforming China’s internal system but on a three-pronged approach—economic, technological, and diplomatic pressure—to keep China in a state of prolonged imbalance. At the same time, it maintains a degree of global engagement, preventing China from fully decoupling or dominating the evolution of the international system.
In short, Trump doesn’t want China to collapse but to remain weak enough, constrained enough, and dependent enough without blowing up the global system. This is a calculated strategy grounded in the status quo, showing that U.S.-China rivalry has entered a new phase: no longer a binary choice of war or peace but a long-term process of competitive management and order rebuilding.
