As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, both candidates-Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump-have demonstrated on a range of issues that they see the United States and China as strategic competitors and even new Cold War enemy policy direction on a range of issues spanning technology, trade and global influence. While Harris has limited foreign policy experience, the Democrats' deep diplomatic bureaucracy and strategy of generally supporting a multilateral, cooperative approach could solidify U.S. alliances and global leadership. Trump, by contrast, has a tough foreign policy and is adept at applying strategic pressure, but his administration's preference for unilateralism and “America First” policies has led to a unique model of international engagement. The outcome of this election will significantly affect the US-China relationship, shaping perceptions of the power dynamics between the two countries at home and abroad.

Harris's Approach

Due to Kamala Harris' limited experience in foreign policy, she may be seen as less predictable when dealing with complex international issues and lacked diplomatic exposure during her four years as Vice President. She is less experienced than politicians with years of diplomatic experience in dealing with dangerous situations involving superpowers, such as China, that require a high degree of diplomatic competence. However, guided by Democratic influence, Harris can be expected to pursue a multilateral, coalition-based strategy.

Specific initiatives include those carried over from the Biden administration's foreign policy: strengthening NATO and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) alliance, and solidifying U.S. alliances in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, as well as other Southeast Asian countries.

Democrats typically advocate policies to protect and advance U.S. power in the international order. A Harris-led administration would balance cooperation with allies and counter China's growing economic and military influence. This could mean pushing for new regional trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to counter China's economic dominance in Asia.

Democrats have typically taken a hard line against China on technology transfer and trade issues. The Harris administration is likely to increase scrutiny of Chinese technology companies, especially in areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and quantum computing, and increase restrictions on technology exports. However, a Democratic-led administration would likely take a more multilateral approach by joining forces with allies to address China's practices on intellectual property, unfair trade policies and government subsidies, such as by jointly increasing tariffs.

Like most Democratic presidents, Harris is likely to put human rights and climate issues at the forefront of U.S.-China relations. Democrats have consistently been active voices on human rights issues in regions such as Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and under Harris, the administration is likely to take a tougher stance, responding to human rights issues through sanctions or international public pressure.

On climate, Democrats are inclined to cooperate with China, especially in the context of the country's status as a major global emitter, but such cooperation would prioritize what is consistent with U.S. environmental and ethical standards.

Including on issues such as the fight against fentanyl precursors, Democratic administrations have generally favored cooperation with China in the fight.

Trump's Approach

Trump has demonstrated aggressive unilateralism through tariffs, sanctions, and tough rhetoric during his first presidency, intent on containing China's power. His tough stance, while varying in effectiveness, reflects the Trump administration's determination to confront China's economic policies and military ambitions head-on. While Trump's positions have focused on “America First,” his keen command of leverage and courage to break the mold have led to a number of successful bilateral agreements.

If elected, Trump is expected to resume economic policies and “trade wars” to reduce the dependence of key U.S. industries on Chinese supply chains. He is likely to expand tariff restrictions on Chinese products, further limit Chinese investment in U.S. companies, and encourage U.S. firms to relocate their operations back to the United States. Trump has long advocated for a more independent America that is less dependent on China, and his administration could accelerate the pace of this transition through tax cuts, subsidies, and economic incentives.

While Trump and Republicans continued to express opposition to intervention in Ukraine during the election, former President Trump has made clear the importance of preserving U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific region. He is likely to advocate for an increased military presence in the region, working with allies to maintain control of key sea lanes.

Unlike Harris's focus on working with allies, Trump may view this as a separate U.S. initiative that may make allies skeptical of U.S. intentions, but would more directly demonstrate its dominant U.S. influence in the region.

Under Trump, tech competition between the U.S. and China is likely to intensify, as it did during his first term in office, especially in strategic areas such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and biotechnology. His administration has limited the influence of Huawei and TikTok within the U.S., and if Trump gets a second term, it could impose even tighter controls on Chinese tech companies. Trump will further strengthen the protection of U.S. intellectual property as a key priority to maintain U.S. innovation leadership.

As a representative of “businessman diplomacy,” the Trump administration has somewhat downplayed human rights issues, prioritizing trade and economic issues. Future Trump administrations will likely be less critical of human rights in order to maintain direct negotiating channels with China, thereby avoiding potential disputes that could affect trade or economic agreements. This strategy would allow Trump to focus more on economic goals in negotiations.

Conclusion

Harris and Trump have different perspectives on how to approach the U.S.-China relationship, each of which may offer benefits or pitfalls for the United States. Harris's strategy fits within a more traditional framework of establishment and Democratic diplomacy by solidifying alliances and promoting human rights and values, while Trump's strategy is more protective of U.S. economic and technological interests and repeatedly relies on unilateral measures.

From a long-term perspective, Harris has helped the United States maintain its superpower status in terms of technology, climate, and military alliances by solidifying international alliances. However, her inexperience in foreign policy may present challenges in implementing these strategies. If implemented properly, her multilateralism has the potential to create a stable but competitive U.S.-China relationship that, as Biden put it, “cooperates where we should cooperate, competes where we should compete, and confronts where we should confront,” based on clear international standards and common goals among allies.

Trump's strategy, on the other hand, leads to more intense and unpredictable competition. While this may be a more effective short-term method of containing China's expansion, it may also affect alliance relations due to his unilateral policies. By prioritizing U.S. interests over alliance relations, Trump could deteriorate U.S.-American relations along with U.S.-allied relations and accelerate economic decoupling, which in turn could spawn two opposing global orders.