A China Strategy That Lasts: Congress Must Lead to Compete With Beijing

Foreign Affairs | Bill Cassidy

Chinese state-subsidized industrial overproduction requires a permanent legislative framework from the United States Congress to safeguard domestic manufacturing and secure global supply chains. Presidential executive orders offer only temporary protections against predatory trade practices, leaving U.S. national security vulnerable to political shifts in Washington. In response, congressional leaders aim to codify the June 2026 executive order on customs enforcement, building on the July 2025 repeal of the de minimis tariff exemption for packages under $800.

Enacting the Customs Modernization Act would equip Customs and Border Protection with advanced artificial intelligence analytics to screen imports effectively. Externally, the proposed Americas Act seeks to counter Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative by founding the Americas Investment Corporation to finance near-shoring and critical mineral supply chains across the Western Hemisphere. Finally, the Foreign Pollution Fee targets China's 2024 carbon emissions exceeding 12 billion tons, offsetting cost advantages gained through lax environmental standards.

Comment

Legislative codification of trade barriers marks a shift from presidential economic statecraft to institutionalised defense-industrial protectionism. Relying on transient executive orders creates uncertainty for commercial manufacturers supplying dual-use components to the U.S. Department of Defense. Establishing statutory trade protections under Customs and Border Protection provides the regulatory stability required for domestic foundries and chemical processors to expand long-term capital investments.

This structural shift directly impacts wartime surge readiness by securing domestic supply chains for vital precursors before conflict occurs. Without legislative guarantees, private defense contractors remain reluctant to build redundant capacity against Chinese state-subsidised competition. Consequently, statutory mechanisms like the Americas Investment Corporation serve as industrial buffers that preserve defense-critical manufacturing bases against targeted market flooding.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor will prove more decisive in securing defense-critical supply chains against Chinese market expansion — statutory mandates enforced by Customs and Border Protection, or capital co-investment provided through the Americas Investment Corporation?

The available evidence points toward capital co-investment through the Americas Investment Corporation as the more decisive tool over the long term. While enforcement by Customs and Border Protection restricts illicit market entry, direct capital deployment creates viable alternative production capacity in friendly jurisdictions that defensive tariffs alone cannot generate.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here