The FCC was once a sleepy backwater. It auctioned spectrum. It licensed TV stations. Then came Trump. Reuters reported on August 10 that the agency has morphed into the administration's spearhead on China.
The FCC was a sleepy spectrum auctioneer. Now it's Trump's China spearhead.
Under Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump ally, the FCC has spent nine months swinging a wrecking ball at Chinese tech. It banned imports of new Chinese drones, routers, inverters, and even humanoid robots. It also launched a process to block Chinese labs from testing smartphones, cameras, and computers destined for the US market. All are measures the US says threaten the supply chain.
Reuters also noted the FCC is drafting a ban on Chinese data center components. The aim: protect the US infrastructure that underpins the artificial intelligence boom.
US officials told Reuters the White House backs these moves. But here's the twist: the FCC is trying to do it all without provoking Beijing. The method? Target Chinese technology without ever saying 'China'. The idea is to keep the pressure on while avoiding a diplomatic blow-up. One official put it bluntly: the FCC is now 'the tip of the spear' of Washington's economic policy toward China.
The Trump administration wants to disrupt China's tech supply chain and boost US manufacturing, all while avoiding a diplomatic blow-up.
Officials described the FCC's playbook: don't mention China. Instead, ban foreign imports of specific technologies and then hand out exemptions to non-Chinese companies. The aim is to push Chinese equipment out of the tech supply chain and boost American manufacturing. The White House has given its blessing.
The China Hawk at the Helm
It is no exaggeration: The Trump administration has turned the FCC into the center of gravity for its competitive actions against China. That's the blunt assessment from Eric Sayers, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, a US think tank.
Brendan Carr took over the FCC in January 2025. He quickly made a name for himself with investigations into broadcast companies. Democrats blasted those moves as an attack on press freedom.
Brendan Carr, Trump's FCC chair, is a China hawk. He took office last January.
But Carr is also a 'China hawk.' Once at the helm, he made expanding national security authority his top priority. His focus: network and supply chain vulnerabilities from 'foreign adversaries,' with China at the very top of the list.
China Hits Back: Diversified and Tit-for-Tat
China is already pushing back. Beijing has repeatedly condemned the US actions as discriminatory treatment against Chinese companies. It warns those moves could disrupt global supply chains. And it will take necessary measures to safeguard its rights and interests.
On August 5, China fired back. As Guancha.cn reported, Beijing rolled out five countermeasures simultaneously to hit back at US restrictions. The Ministry of Commerce spokesperson urged Washington to “cherish the hard-won stability of China-US economic and trade relations”. And the warning was blunt: if the US persists, China will retaliate further.
But foreign media noticed something else. They described China's latest moves as “restrained but diversified and tit-for-tat”.
The measures hit multiple fronts. China tightened export controls on drones and related technologies. It slapped sanctions on several US companies. And it launched its first-ever national security investigation tied to foreign trade.
Meng Weizhan, an associate professor at Fudan University's Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences, sees a clear message. Through what he calls “diversified and hard-hitting” moves, China is signaling that for every area the US expands, Beijing can retaliate in an adjacent or corresponding field.
Once Washington gets the message, Meng argues, it will become more cautious. Even if it doesn't back down right away, it will start counting the costs more carefully.
Deep Throat
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
The future belongs to artificial general intelligence (AGI). China and the United States are pursuing different strategies in the contest for global leadership.
But one US national security think tank wants to take the rivalry to an extreme. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has gone so far as to suggest that Washington consider extreme measures to stop China from achieving AGI first.
CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.
Jacob Stokes, one of the report's authors and a former White House official, called on the US to prepare itself. He listed possible extreme measures, from diplomacy and espionage to cyberattacks and coercive steps. Among them: military strikes on Chinese data centers.
Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.
CNAS is headquartered in Washington and was founded in 2007. It has long advised the US government on defense, Indo-Pacific and China strategy. Its lean is hawkish.
Late last month, CNAS released a report titled “Superpowers and AGI”. The document reeks of gunpowder. It argues that the race for AGI, and the technology's potential emergence, could profoundly affect US-China competition. It could also heighten the risk of military conflict or catastrophe on multiple fronts.
The Containment Checklist
To that end, the report urges US policymakers to act on several fronts. First, ensure that American resources and technology do not aid China's AI development. Second, establish AI-focused diplomatic channels with allies and with China, so that the potential emergence of AGI is placed on the agenda. Third, develop a technically sophisticated method to track the inputs into AGI and the key performance thresholds of frontier AI systems.
The list goes on. Washington should conduct scenario exercises testing when and how the US should intervene to halt China's AGI development. It should prepare to reverse-engineer or steal the technology should China obtain AGI first. And it should limit and contain the reach of authoritarian digital infrastructure.
The most extreme proposal of all is military strikes. The South China Morning Post reported on 4 September that Stokes, deputy director of CNAS's Indo-Pacific Security Program, addressed an online event on Thursday.
His message was blunt. The US Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and other agencies should begin assessing what intelligence would be needed to justify such operations. That would pave the way for the "hard action" to follow.
The Cold War Playbook
Stokes served as a national security staffer under former US president Barack Obama. In the report he unabashedly lays out a menu of what he calls "diplomatic, espionage, cyber and kinetic measures." Among them are military strikes on the data centers that train and run China's AGI systems. He even touts preventive strikes before China develops AGI at all.
Stokes goes so far as to compare the undertaking to the way "in a past era, policymakers would learn about nuclear weapons." His declared method is to "work backwards from the science to the policy implications."
Citing assessments by research outfit Epoch AI, the report notes that the US currently leads China in advanced AI models by only "months." But it warns that China could pull off an "unexpected technological breakthrough" in fields such as robotics and "embodied AI."
Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.
Notably, Stokes also concedes a gap on the American side. The US government and its intelligence agencies have "not been organised for espionage to gather technological secrets for decades."
"The Height of Recklessness"
Stokes' extreme remarks have drawn questioning within the United States itself. William Hartung, a senior arms and defense budget expert at the Washington-based non-profit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), publicly slammed the report as "the height of recklessness."
Hartung warned that any strike on Chinese data centers would "risk starting a shooting war between two nuclear-armed powers". Such a war could bring tragic consequences for all concerned.
China has consistently maintained that AI should be people-centered and that intelligence should serve the good. Military applications must remain under human control. Beijing opposes turning technological issues into bloc confrontation or weaponry.
Make no mistake: technological competition is no casus belli. When individual American politicians and think-tank figures reach for threats of "military strikes" and "espionage" at every turn, they gravely violate the basic norms of international relations. They also expose a dangerous bid to politicize and militarize technology.
