A popular narrative in Washington has blamed trade for America’s perceived relative decline in global influence. Many argue that by opening up to trade with rising powers like China and India, the U.S. inadvertently empowered its competitors, allowing them to challenge America’s dominant position on the world stage. But according to recent analysis, this view misrepresents history, and tariffs are unlikely to reverse the ongoing shift in global power.
The debate echoes the decades-long frustration over “losing” China after 1949, when the communist takeover became a source of self-reproach in American political circles. This time, however, the question is not “who lost China?” but “who empowered China?” A growing number of policymakers, including Republicans and some Democrats, point to America’s trade policies as the catalyst for China’s rise to superpower status. They argue that a series of naive decisions by past administrations opened the floodgates, allowing China to outpace the U.S. economically and geopolitically.
However, this interpretation of history is overly simplistic and ignores the nuances of trade relations, as well as the broader context of global economic evolution. The U.S. did not welcome China into the global trading system without opposition. In fact, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 was a result of years of diplomatic negotiation, during which the U.S. and other countries resisted, citing concerns over China’s protectionist policies and human rights record. The idea that Washington naively welcomed China into the fold without caution doesn’t align with the historical record, as pointed out by an expert in The Financial Times.
Moreover, the notion that the U.S. could have somehow prevented China’s rise by withholding trade is misleading. Even if trade with China had been curtailed, it’s unlikely that the U.S. could have avoided the broader economic forces at play. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. benefited significantly from cheap imports, which helped keep inflation low and fostered an era of economic growth. The country enjoyed a period of economic stability and low borrowing costs, contributing to the tech boom that birthed giants like Amazon and Google. Any attempt to prevent China’s economic rise would have likely come with significant costs to the U.S. economy itself.
Critics also fail to consider the broader geopolitical context. Would it have been politically or morally acceptable to exclude China, a country that makes up roughly one-fifth of the world’s population, from the global trading system? After a generation of economic reforms, albeit incomplete, China had moved away from strict communist economics, making exclusion seem impractical and damaging to the legitimacy of the global system.
The truth is, the decline of U.S. unipolarity is not the result of trade alone. By the end of the 20th century, China, the former Soviet bloc, and even India began to reform their economies, setting the stage for a more multipolar world. As these nations grew, so did their share of global output, and the U.S.’s dominance inevitably waned. This shift was a natural consequence of history, rather than a deliberate consequence of American trade policy.
A coroner examining the demise of American unipolarity would likely return a verdict of “death by natural causes.” The U.S., with only 4-5% of the world’s population, could not realistically maintain absolute control over global affairs forever. This phenomenon mirrors the historical shift in the early 20th century when the U.S. overtook Britain as the world’s preeminent power.
While protectionism may still have its place—particularly in strategic sectors like technology or to protect vulnerable industries from foreign competition—blaming trade for America’s relative decline oversimplifies the issue. Tariffs and trade restrictions may temporarily alleviate some immediate concerns but are unlikely to restore the U.S. to its previous global dominance.
The argument that trade has caused America’s reduced status is a comfort blanket for policymakers seeking to shift blame away from the larger geopolitical realities. As noted by The Financial Times, the real issue is the agency of other nations—particularly China and India—that have made decisions over the past few decades that have allowed them to rise.
In the past, the “loss-of-China” narrative caused significant political damage, contributing to McCarthyism and the disaster in Vietnam. If today’s protectionist rhetoric leads to another round of misguided recrimination, the result will likely be expensive tariffs—rather than a true reversal of the global power shift.
As the world continues to evolve, America’s role in it will depend on how it adapts to the new balance of power. The truth is that the U.S. no longer commands the scene alone, and that’s not necessarily a failure. Instead, it’s a sign of a more interconnected and multipolar world.
