America's anxiety is becoming impossible to hide.
For years now, Washington has swung its China policy from "engagement" to "containment," throwing everything at Beijing short of open conflict. But China hasn't been contained at all. Instead, it's racing ahead in renewable energy, manufacturing, and trade—often leaving the US trailing in its wake. This widening gap between American expectations and reality has plunged the country into something deeper than mere frustration: it's a crisis of confidence.
Feith's article—a mirror to America's anxieties
The Washington Post recently ran a piece by David Feith, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, titled "America Must Regain Confidence to Compete with China." What's revealing about this article isn't what it says about China—it's what it says about America. After years of beating the drum about the "China threat," it turns out the real problem troubling America might not be Beijing at all. It's Washington itself.
Feith doesn't mince words. He argues that decades of policy blunders have shattered public trust in government. The Iraq War debacle. The 2008 financial crisis. De-industrialization that gutted the heartland. A pandemic response that became a national embarrassment. These failures haven't just disappointed Americans—they've accumulated into institutional exhaustion. Today's America doubts both its own capabilities and its moral authority, with growing numbers of citizens actively opposing US power projection abroad.
When Doubt Becomes Policy
This atmosphere of "doubt and division," as Feith calls it, makes it nearly impossible for America to build consensus around shared objectives. It weakens the country's ability to craft long-term strategies or sustain the resource commitments needed to execute them. Put simply: America wants to compete with China, but it lacks the internal confidence and cohesion to do so effectively.
This diagnosis aligns perfectly with recent political reality. Both Trump and Biden have found common ground on taking a hard line toward China—perhaps the only issue the two parties agree on. Yet their domestic policy divisions have never been sharper. Public discontent gets channeled into external anxiety, making policy increasingly emotional, reactive, and short-sighted.
Feith identifies what he calls "directionless persistence" in America's recent China policy: Washington claims it wants to contain China, yet it can't break free from Chinese markets and supply chains. This fundamental contradiction has made US strategy increasingly reactive rather than proactive.
Take Trump's approach. After taking office, his administration slapped tough trade measures on China, trying to force supply chains back to American soil. The result? Soaring costs, worsening inflation, and cratering business confidence. Even after returning to the White House, Trump kept up the bombast, threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and accusing Beijing of "not buying American soybeans." Then Treasury officials quietly walked it back: "The 100% tariff does not have to happen." This perfectly captures current US policy—lots of noise, little action, riddled with contradictions.
The Leverage That Wasn't There
Bloomberg's analysis cuts even deeper: Trump simply doesn't have the leverage to back up his threats. He overestimated America's trade influence while badly underestimating China's capacity to absorb pressure. Chinese companies have already pivoted their export destinations. Washington's "punishments" increasingly look toothless.
The root cause of this policy whiplash is simple: America views competition as a zero-sum game while ignoring that the global economy is deeply integrated. Sanctions and high tariffs might play well to domestic political audiences, but they do almost nothing to revitalize industry or enhance competitiveness.
Feith argues that if America truly wants to compete with China, it needs to start with internal reform. That means rebuilding industrial capacity, loosening regulations that stifle technological innovation, and encouraging a new generation of entrepreneurs to invest in renewable energy, manufacturing, and foundational technologies.
He points to patriotic entrepreneurs and investors now trying to rebuild domestic supply chains in defense, energy, and manufacturing—a commendable direction. But if the financial sector, media, and academia remain trapped in ideological warfare, the innovation ecosystem can't genuinely recover.
Strategy Versus Speculation
This call for reform reflects a harsh reality: America's real problem isn't a lack of competitors—it's a lack of long-term strategic thinking. China's development model emphasizes infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. America has leaned too heavily on capital and financial markets. When these two paths diverged, Washington suddenly realized that "market self-correction" isn't the universal solution it was promised to be.
The International Energy Agency's latest report shows that US investment in renewable energy still lags behind both China and the EU. Without policy coherence, America's industrial advantages will continue to erode.
Against this backdrop, Feith's call for America to "regain confidence" isn't about encouraging populist chest-thumping. It's about recovering rational self-affirmation: acknowledging mistakes, correcting course, and rebuilding capabilities.
That's the prerequisite for real competition. Because a nation without confidence will only be driven by anxiety. And policies driven by anxiety will only make the problems worse.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Last Friday, Trump flat-out torpedoed a much-anticipated zero-emissions deal for the global shipping industry, smashing it apart at the United Nations' International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Financial Times lays it all bare: to kill the net-zero shipping pact, Trump didn’t just lean on the usual diplomatic muscle—Washington went full gangster. Think raised port fees, outright bans on ships passing through America, and direct threats, and even personal intimidation of diplomats and their families, with entry bans waved in their faces like warning flags.
The Financial Times lays it out: over a dozen diplomats, foreign officials, and industry insiders watched the US throw diplomacy in the mud at last month’s London summit. Washington came armed with bullying tactics, determined to smash the net-zero shipping pact by brute force.
US Bullying Blocks IMO’s Green Shipping Deal—Vote Delayed a Year. IMO website image.
US officials didn’t bother with backroom deals—they stalked the halls, cornering diplomats from Africa, the Pacific, and the Caribbean. The message was simple: cross the United States, and your ships might not reach America. Rock the boat, and your family could be locked out. These weren’t idle whispers. The intimidation played out in broad daylight during coffee breaks.
Social Media Taunts, Policy Upends
Trump didn’t bother hiding his true feelings. On social media, he slammed the agreement as a “global green shipping tax scam.” But this wasn’t just venting. In April, most countries had already green-lit the framework. It was set to become real policy—until Trump’s team blew it up, forcing a one-year “pause.” The global momentum froze on the spot.
One diplomat cut to the heart of it: “It’s like the streets of New York.” His country got the warning firsthand—keep backing the deal, and watch your sailors’ visas disappear. US port fees? Those would rise too. Another attendee was even more blunt: IMO bigwigs were left gobsmacked. “It’s like dealing with the mafia,” they said. “You don’t need details. You just know: cross us, and you’ll pay.”
The US State Department kept mum on the intimidation claims. Instead, American officials handed out praise to Greece and Cyprus. Those two broke rank from the rest of the EU—they cast abstention votes in the big one-year adjournment, even after they already gave the framework the green light back in April.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ahead of the IMO meeting in London, issued a joint statement with senior Trump officials warning that the administration was "evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration." As Greece and Cyprus sided with the U.S., much of Europe—and the world—reacted with surprise.
Global Rules or American Muscle?
Chatham House’s head of global economy Creon Butler didn’t mince words. The US, he said, has ditched long-standing diplomatic etiquette. Instead, Washington's now muscling countries into backing its stance—especially on climate.
America Threatens: Support This, Your Crews and Ports Pay.
“In the very short term this might work, but in the medium term it increases the chances that non-US countries will conclude they cannot work with the US, making agreements independently among themselves which simply work around the US,” he said. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will ink deals that leave America in the dust.
The pushback reached fever pitch at the IMO. Brazil, among others, called out the methods “that should not ever be used among sovereign nations”. Washington wasn’t just rattling individuals—entire capitals, from Bangladesh to Japan and Indonesia, got notes threatening diplomatic smackdowns.
But let’s step back. The drive for a net-zero shipping pact isn’t about feel-good climate slogans.
As Niu Tanqin from Xinhua puts it: The pact itself is a brass-tacks response to global warming’s mounting cost. Whether you like it or not, global warming is simply an undisputable fact. Everyone is scrambling to stall off the climate catastrophes looming on the horizon.
So, in order to squeeze carbon emission: if your ship emits less than the set limit, you’re rewarded. Above the cut-off, you pay. China, the EU, Japan, India, Brazil—all were in. Even the big shipping companies joined the chorus.
Only a handful of oil states—think Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE—pushed back. Pacific island nations, unconvinced the pact was tough enough, simply abstained.
Trump Says Global Warming’s a Scam—US Walks Out.
Then, everything changed. Once Trump 2.0 manifested, the US flipped from supporter to saboteur. In his mind, climate change is a hoax—or worse, a Chinese plot to corner American interests. Stopping this agreement wasn’t just policy—it was personal. He didn’t mind stooping low—pulling out every trick in the high school bully’s playbook: pressure, threats, and outright intimidation to make sure America got its way.
One official wasn’t shy: “It was completely exceptional. I have never heard of anything like this in the context of an IMO negotiation. These people [being threatened] are just bureaucrats, they are civil servants.”
If international law becomes a mere cheap disguise, you can bet real power will be the one pulling the strings.
Pause Button Pressed—World Left Reeling
Now, the deal waits on ice for another year, while “the world stares, shell-shocked”—witnesses to a new era of American brinkmanship.
Not the first time, either. Just look at tariffs: if Washington’s unhappy, it writes its own tax bill—no debate required. Venezuela and Nigeria have both fielded threats of military action; Canada and Panama know the taste of territorial intimidation. Lawless? That’s par for the course.
But payback, as always, has a funny way of coming due. Today, the US bullies island nations and slaps down climate claims. Tomorrow, who’s next? When “might makes right” replaces rules, every nation that depends on order will lose out. True justice may come late—but it never skips its date. Chip away at the pillars of fairness, and sooner or later, you bury the very house you live in.
The real question: how long can America’s strong-arm show go on before the world walks out?
