Summary

China’s rise as a dominant economic and geopolitical actor is the product of a coherent, multi-pillar strategy: sustained infrastructure build-out at home and abroad, export strength paired with industrial upgrading, mission-driven R&D and science policy, rapid (if uneven) military modernization, and an increasingly sophisticated mix of economic diplomacy and soft power.

In contrast, U.S. competitiveness has been blunted by:

·       Runaway Bureaucracy and systemic inefficiencies, regulating every element of our existence,

·       Hostile environment against the business community and success,

·       Establishing unconscionable liability in business,

·       Fragmented infrastructure upgrades and execution,

·       Inconsistent public R&D growth, reactive trade and technology controls,

·       Inefficient defense procurement,

·       Retreat in development assistance and people-to-people engagement.

·       Stifling strengths in elite innovation, alliances, and the rule of Law ecosystem.

·       Creating a punitive environment for anything successful.

The U.S. is losing the race for economic dominance.

Restoring U.S. leadership requires reprioritization: accelerate high-impact infrastructure to demonstrate policymakers’ capacity to lead and deliver tangible results, and pursue reforms across infrastructure, R&D, defense, and soft power to regain confidence and influence.

1) China’s Strategic Posture—What’s Working

1.1 Infrastructure at Scale (Domestic)

China’s 14th Five-Year Plan turbocharged transport build-out—over 90% of planned projects completed by 2024 and high-speed rail extended beyond 48,000 km—knitting urban and rural regions into dense internal markets while reducing logistics friction for industry clusters.  The approach leverages centralized planning and patient-state capital, which can deliver speed and scale, albeit with uneven spillovers when market institutions remain weak.

1.2 Infrastructure Diplomacy (BRI)

Abroad, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has financed power, rail, ports, and telecommunications networks in more than 150 countries, with approximately $679 billion committed (2013–2021), vastly outpacing U.S. infrastructure support.  BRI projects increase China’s connectivity and influence, while raising well-documented governance, debt‑sustainability, and ESG concerns that Beijing has begun to address selectively.

1.3 Technology, Science, and Industrial Policy

Beijing’s “full‑stack” AI and semiconductor push couples talent programs, subsidized compute, and mission labs to drive self-reliance amid export restrictions.  China’s government R&D outlays and national lab network have surged, with the next FYP (2026–2030) prioritizing chip independence, AI, and basic science, thereby elevating state intramural R&D as a strategic lever.

1.4 Trade Strength and Industrial Upgrading

China posted a historic 2025 goods trade surplus (> $1 trillion), driven by autos, batteries, machinery, and electronics—evidence of up-the-value-chain manufacturing and robust supply-chain clusters.  Yet the surplus also reflects weak domestic demand and stagnant imports, fueling accusations of overcapacity and dumping that drive trade friction.

1.5 Military Modernization

PLA spending, doctrine, and platforms have shifted from regional, manpower-heavy forces to increasingly joint, technology-enabled capabilities.  Fleet growth, nuclear expansion, and overseas logistics hubs support a gradual shift toward global maritime presence.  The trajectory is constrained by economic headwinds, technological bottlenecks, and coalition responses, but it reflects sustained prioritization.

1.6 Soft Power and People-to-People Engagement

China complements its complex infrastructure with cultural institutions, scholarships, media, and trade diplomacy, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.  It’s pragmatic, benefits-first approach often resonates where tangible projects and financing matter more than normative messaging—though pushback occurs where influence is perceived as political or opaque.

2) China’s Risk Profile—Constraints to Watch

Infrastructure & Local Debt: Spillovers are neutral or negative when market institutions are weak; local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) face stress as growth moderates.  Policymakers are nudging consumption to reduce reliance on investment.
BRI Debt & ESG: Host-country debt distress, renegotiations, and standards issues can erode returns and reputation; multilateral co-financing and safeguards are applied unevenly.
Export Controls & Tech Bottlenecks: U.S.-led controls on advanced chips/equipment constrain frontier AI; indigenization mitigates but cannot fully replace leading-edge tools in the near term.
Domestic Demand & Property: Precautionary savings and real‑estate corrections suppress consumption, complicating “dual circulation” ambitions.
Trade Frictions: Surplus-driven backlash (EVs/batteries) increases the risk of tariffs, anti-dumping cases, and de-risking, especially in the EU and U.S.
Demographics & Human Capital Mismatch: An aging population and youth unemployment pressure productivity, even as top-tier institutions drive frontier research.

3) U.S. Misallocation—Where Priorities Lag

3.1 Infrastructure Execution

The U.S. underinvests and struggles to deliver high-ambition projects, which can undermine confidence in its strategic capacity and prompt policymakers to prioritize tangible results, which are essential for maintaining leadership.

U.S. underinvestment in infrastructure, stagnant R&D growth, and fragmented defense procurement highlight critical policy gaps.  Addressing these misallocations through targeted reforms is essential to enhance U.S. competitiveness and strategic leadership amid China’s advancing strategies.

U.S. GERD growth has slowed relative to China’s, and uncertainty over multi-year funding (e.g., CHIPS, NSF cuts) can cast doubt on our long-term innovation leadership, underscoring the need for consistent, mission-focused investment to reassure stakeholders of our strategic resolve.

3.3 Semiconductor Strategy

“Small yard, high fence” controls disrupted China’s access but also reduced U.S. chip revenues and accelerated Chinese self-reliance, underscoring the importance of domestic capacity and allied coordination to reassure policymakers that the United States is building resilient, strategic advantages.

3.4 Human Capital and Skills

Elite innovation thrives, but national pipelines are inconsistent: high tuition, debt, uneven vocational pathways, and K-12 disparities limit scale relative to China’s centralized STEM mobilization (notwithstanding quality issues on China’s side).

3.5 Defense Procurement and Readiness

Top-heavy bureaucracy and acquisition failures (e.g., software-lagging platforms) siphon resources from maintenance, training, and next-gen capabilities; budgeting uncertainty (sequester-era cuts) cost a “lost decade” of procurement capacity.

3.6 Soft Power Retrenchment

USAID downsizing and program freezes, reduced cultural broadcasting, and visa constraints diminish U.S. visibility and reliability in regions where China “shows up” with financing, projects, and language‑competent diplomacy.

 4) Reform Agenda for U.S. Competitiveness (12–36 Months)

4.1 Infrastructure: Speed with Standards

• Permitting reform: Establish a single federal coordinator and statutory shot clocks; adopt “one‑stop” concurrent reviews.
• Execution discipline: Introduce use‑it‑or‑lose‑it funds, milestone-based disbursement, and standardized design-build templates for rail/ports.
• Global offering: Launch a transparent, ESG-aligned Partner Infrastructure Facility with G7/multilateral co-financing to compete where BRI is dominant.

KPIs: Median environmental review time ≤24 months; cost/schedule variance <15%; $50–$75 B co-financed projects in priority corridors.

4.2 Mission R&D: Lock in Continuity

• Multi-year authorization: Ring‑fence 10-year funding streams for AI, semiconductors, energy storage, and biomanufacturing.
• DARPA‑plus model: Expand mission directorates with flexible procurement and prize-based challenges.
• Translational bridges: Provide “Valley of Death” grants to pilot and scale lab-to-market in key sectors.

KPIs: Public R&D ≥1.5% of GDP by 2030; time‑to‑prototype ≤24 months; 100+ translational pilots.

4.3 Semiconductor Strategy: Resilience, Not Just Restriction

• Allied toolchain compacts: Deepen equipment/export coordination (ASML, Tokyo Electron, U.S. firms).
• Domestic capacity: Incentivize mature‑node and advanced packaging to harden supply; scale workforce programs for fab technicians.
• Selective tethering: Permit controlled exports of downgraded chips to preserve dependency and insight, while closing cloud loopholes.

KPIs: +30% domestic mature‑node capacity; allied export harmonization; reduced lead times for critical tools.

4.4 Human Capital: Scale Technical Pathways

• National apprenticeship system: Co-fund employer consortia in manufacturing/energy/IT; modernize community colleges.
• Debt relief for critical skills: Targeted loan forgiveness for STEM and skilled trades; expand Pell for short-cycle credentials.
• K-12 STEM equity: Incentivize states to adopt rigorous math/CS standards and teacher pay differentials.

KPIs: +500k new apprentices; 1 M incremental STEM/CTE completions; K-12 math proficiency +10 pp in 5 years.

4.5 Defense: Acquisition and Readiness Reform

• Digital acquisition: Mandate agile software pipelines, modular open systems, and DevSecOps across major programs.
• Performance-based contracting: Tie payments to mission outcomes; sunset chronically underperforming platforms.
• Audit & accountability: Stand up independent cost assessments; redirect savings to cyber, space, and autonomous systems.

KPIs: On-time software releases; ≥20% cycle‑time reduction in major programs; clean audit segments each year.

4.6 Soft Power: Show Up—Early, Often, Empathetically

• USAID reboot: Rebuild staff and field presence; emphasize co-creation and local procurement.
• University & visa policies: Expand scholarships, streamline STEM visas, and restore exchange programs.
• Visible projects: A Digital Marshall Plan for last-mile connectivity and e-government in ASEAN, Africa, and LATAM with transparent tendering.

KPIs: 50 flagship development projects; +25% international student inflows; improved favorability in ISEAS/PEW polls.

5) Comparative KPIs—Tracking the Gap

6) Implementation Roadmap

0–12 Months: Pass permitting and mission‑R&D authorizations; USAID staffing restoration; allied semiconductor compact MOUs; pilot apprenticeship consortia.
12–24 Months: Launch Partner Infrastructure Facility; award translational R&D grants; implement digital acquisition standards across three major programs; first Digital Marshall Plan tenders.
24–36 Months: Commission initial rail/port upgrades; reach public R&D growth targets; demonstrate clean audit segments; publish soft‑power Impact scorecards.

Summary & Key Takeaways

China’s edge comes from a coherent, multi-pillar strategy executed with speed and continuity:

• Infrastructure at scale integrates domestic markets and enables global reach through the BRI, delivering visible projects that amplify trade and influence (rail, ports, power).
• Mission-driven science policy and rising government R&D underpin AI, semiconductor, and green‑tech ambitions—even under export controls.
• Industrial upgrading has shifted exports up the value chain (automotive, battery, and machinery), producing a record goods surplus but also stoking trade frictions.
• PLA modernization and soft‑power engagement (scholarships, culture, media, financing) extend presence and leverage across key regions.

U.S. gaps reflect misallocated priorities and execution friction:

• Infrastructure delivery lags—permitting complexity and fragmented governance slow high-impact projects at home and limit credible alternatives to BRI abroad.
• R&D growth and funding continuity are inconsistent, thereby weakening the mission's focus relative to China’s expanding state labs.
• Semiconductor policy has been overly reactive; controls reduced U.S. revenues and accelerated Chinese self-reliance without a parallel surge in allied, domestic capacity.
• Human capital pipelines (K-12, vocational, debt burden) lack scale and equity, constraining technical workforce growth.
• Defense acquisition is top-heavy and slow, diverting resources from readiness and next-gen capabilities.
• Soft power retrenchment (aid cuts, fewer exchanges) cedes ground in regions where tangible projects and consistent presence matter most.

What to do now (12–36 months):

·         Permitting & delivery reform: Single federal coordinator, statutory shot‑clocks, milestone-based funding; launch a transparent Partner Infrastructure Facility with G7/multilateral co-financing.

·         Lock in mission R&D: 10-year funding streams in AI/semis/energy/biotech; DARPA‑plus directorates and translational grants to bridge lab‑to‑market.

·         Semiconductor resilience: Allied toolchain compacts; scale domestic mature‑node and packaging; workforce pipelines; calibrated exports to maintain leverage while closing cloud loopholes.

·         Human capital scale-up: National apprenticeships, community‑college modernization, targeted debt relief for critical skills, K-12 math/CS standards, and teacher pay differentials.

·         Defense acquisition reset: Agile software pipelines, modular open systems, performance-based contracting, independent cost audits; reallocate savings to cyber, space, autonomy.

·         Soft power reboot: Rebuild USAID and exchange programs; fund visible, values-aligned projects (Digital Marshall Plan) in ASEAN, Africa, LATAM; make presence consistent and locally responsive.

Bottom line:

• China’s model pairs long-horizon capital with execution velocity across infrastructure, science, and diplomacy.

• The U.S. can recover strategic leadership by re-prioritizing toward delivery, continuity, and presence—backed by multi-year mission funding, faster builds, more innovative defense procurement, and a tangible, values-based offer overseas.

Conclusion

China’s rise is not accidental—it reflects a disciplined, long-horizon strategy that integrates infrastructure, technology, trade, military modernization, and soft power into a coherent national vision.  The United States, by contrast, has allowed fragmentation, short-termism, and bureaucratic inertia to dilute its competitive edge.  While America retains unmatched innovation ecosystems, global alliances, and institutional strengths, these advantages will erode without decisive action.  The path forward requires a pivot from reactive measures to proactive investment: accelerating infrastructure delivery, institutionalizing mission-driven R&D, scaling technical workforce pipelines, reforming defense acquisition, and revitalizing soft power through tangible, values-based engagement.  If the U.S. realigns priorities toward execution and continuity, it can not only close the gap with China but also reaffirm its leadership in shaping a stable, prosperous global order.

China’s playbook is coherent and persistent: build connective tissue (rail, ports, digital), upgrade industry, secure supply chains, seed science, expand presence, and make its offer tangible.  The U.S. retains enduring advantages in alliances, entrepreneurial depth, and norms—but must reallocate priorities toward high‑leverage execution.  That means a less reactive policy and more long-horizon delivery: funding continuity, disciplined infrastructure, modernized defense acquisition, and a renewed, people-centered diplomacy.  If Washington can demonstrate projects—not just rhetoric—while scaling mission science and skills, U.S. leadership remains fully recoverable.

References

·       World Bank, China Economic Update: Advancing Reforms, Enhancing Prospects (Press release, 11 December 2025).  https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/12/11/advancing-reforms-can-enhance-prospects-china-economic-update ↩

·       CSIS, China’s Military in 10 Charts (2025).  https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-military-10-charts ↩

·       Hampton Global Business Review, “China Exceeds Infrastructure Targets,” 22 July 2025.  https://hgbr.org/china-exceeds-infrastructure-targets/ ↩ ↩2

·       NBER Working Paper 33725, “State versus Market: China’s Infrastructure Investment,” Apr 2025.  https://www.nber.org/papers/w33725 ↩ ↩2

·       U.S. GAO, International Infrastructure Projects: China’s Investments Significantly Outpace the U.S. (GAO‑24‑106866, 12 September 2024).  https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106866 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

·       Economics Observatory, “The Belt and Road Initiative: Impact on China and the global economy,” 27 May 2025.  https://www.economicsobservatory.com/the-belt-and-road-initiative-what-impact-on-china-and-the-global-economy ↩ ↩2 ↩3

·       RAND, “Full Stack: China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI,” 26 June 2025.  https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

·       Nature, “China seeks self-reliance in science in next five-year plan,” 24 October 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03491-w ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

·       Business Standard, “China’s $1tn trade surplus in 2025,” 11 December 2025.  https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/china-1tn-trade-surplus-china-exports-cars-batteries-low-cost-goods-125121100538_1.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

·       ECB Economic Bulletin, “China’s growing trade surplus: why exports are surging as imports stall,” Issue 7/2025.  https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/focus/2025/html/ecb.ebbox202507_01~83b0e7edd4.en.html ↩ ↩2

·       ChinaObservers (Pentagon report synthesis), 20 February 2025.  https://chinaobservers.eu/the-pentagon-report-chinas-military-rise-and-its-implications-for-the-west/ ↩ ↩2

·       Army Recognition, “China’s Military Expansion and Strategy Detailed in 2024 Pentagon Report,” 27 December 2024.  https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2024/chinas-military-expansion-and-strategy-detailed-in-2024-pentagon-report ↩ ↩2

·       Modern Diplomacy, “China’s Global Influence: A Soft Power Approach,” 11 August 2024.  https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/08/11/chinas-global-influence-a-soft-power-approach/ ↩ ↩2

·       The Geopolitics, “How Does China Leverage Soft Power in South Asia?” 24 June 2024.  https://thegeopolitics.com/how-does-china-leverage-soft-power-in-south-asia/ ↩

·       IMF (Anadolu summary), “China cannot rely on exports to grow,” 10 December 2025.  https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/imf-says-china-cannot-rely-on-exports-to-grow-due-to-large-economic-size-rising-trade-tensions/3767695 ↩ ↩2

·       FPRI, “Breaking the Circuit: US-China Semiconductor Controls,” 16 September 2024.  https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

·       Xinhua (State Council English), “New policy supports unveiled to encourage consumption,” Mar 17–18, 2025.  https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/policywatch/202503/18/content_WS67d8adcfc6d0868f4e8f0e9e.html ↩

·       CSIS, “How China’s Human Capital Impacts National Competitiveness,” updated 17 June 2024.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-chinas-human-capital-impacts-its-national-competitiveness ↩

·       World Bank, Human Capital Country Brief: China (2024).  https://humancapital.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/data/humancapital/pdf/country-briefs-2024/China.pdf ↩

·       China Economic Indicator, “The Great Divergence: Why America’s Infrastructure Model is Losing to China’s,” 26 August 2025.  https://chinaeconomicindicator.com/china-us-infrastructure/ ↩ ↩2

·       ITIF, “China Is Catching Up in R&D—and May Have Already Pulled Ahead,” 9 April 2025.  https://itif.org/publications/2025/04/09/china-catching-up-rd-may-have-already-pulled-ahead/ ↩ ↩2

·       CSIS, “Competing with China’s Public R&D Model,” 17 September 2025.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/competing-chinas-public-rd-model-lessons-and-risks-us-innovation-strategy ↩ ↩2

·       The Diplomat, “Is It Too Late for the US to Change Its Chip Strategy Toward China?” 27 August 2025.  https://thediplomat.com/2025/08/is-it-too-late-for-the-us-to-change-its-chip-strategy-toward-china/ ↩ ↩2

·       Joel Wong, “US vs. Chinese Education System Comparison,” 11 July 2025.  https://www.joelwong.net/2025/07/11/us-vs-chinese-education-system-comparison/ ↩ ↩2

·       U.S.‑China Economic and Security Review Commission, “Educating and Training Its Next Generation Workforce,” Nov 2023.  https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Chapter_3_Section_1--China_Educating_and_Training_Its_Next_Generation_Workforce.pdf ↩ ↩2

·       Hudson Institute testimony, “Wasteful Spending and Inefficiencies: DoD Platform Performance,” 24 July 2024.  https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/oversight-accountability-subcommittee-national-security-border-foreign-bryan-clark ↩ ↩2

·       RAND, “Defense Budgeting and the Dilemma of Lost Time,” 16 August 2023.  https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/defense-budgeting-and-the-dilemma-of-lost-time.html ↩ ↩2

·       19FortyFive, “The U.S. Military’s Spending Crisis,” 24 February 2025.  https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-u-s-militarys-spending-crisis/ ↩ ↩2

·       CFR (Asia Unbound), “U.S. Soft Power Is Spiraling in Asia,” 26 February 2025.  https://www.cfr.org/blog/us-soft-power-spiraling-asia-china-filling-void ↩ ↩2

·       Foreign Affairs, “The New Soft‑Power Imbalance,” 20 November 2025.  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/new-soft-power-imbalance ↩ ↩2

·       Responsible Statecraft, “How China is ‘eating our lunch’ with soft power,” 10 July 2025.  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/china-us-soft-power/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3