Macomb, Detroit, Michigan It was an exhilarating experience to watch the live telecast of Scott Bessent’s over four-hour confirmation hearing for the job of Treasury Secretary of the most powerful nation on Earth. This live broadcast reflected the highest standards of democratic values, making the public a part of vital decision-making, showcasing the performance of their elected representatives, and ensuring their accountability. This hearing also provided a rare opportunity for a writer like me to gain insight into the minds of U.S. decision-makers— how they think, deliberate on critical issues affecting both the United States and the world, strategize, and implement far-reaching, fate-changing decisions.
During the four-hour hearing, the members of the committee grilled Trump’s nominee on multiple issues confronting the USA and the world, including tariff policy, macroeconomic management, ensuring the dominance of the. dollar as the world’s principal reserve currency, reducing inflation, creating jobs, fostering innovation, controlling the energy supply chain and trade routes, establishing a foolproof cybersecurity apparatus, securing and managing rare mineral resources, and maintaining military dominance.
Interestingly, China emerged as the primary focus of the discussion, consuming most of the hearing. No other country or world leader was deemed worthy of significant attention, reflecting the US policymakers’ intense focus on China and its status as the foremost rival to US global influence across nearly all aspects of power dynamics and world dominance. Committee members repeatedly referred to China as “Communist China,” labelling it the nation’s biggest adversary and singling it out as the primary geopolitical and economic threat to the USA.
The senators from both parties expressed deep concerns over China’s alleged unfair trade practices, strategic global investments, and economic manoeuvres aimed at undermining US global leadership. The hearing systematically examined specific threats posed by China and explored counter-strategies to contain and counteract its growing influence.
The senators from both sides of the aisle used their oratory skills to elaborate on and condemn China’s alleged unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation, state subsidies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers, which they argued create an uneven playing field for US businesses. They accused China of weaponizing trade partnerships and using economic coercion to pressure countries into political and military alignment by leveraging its massive trade network.
China’s growing influence in Latin America and Africa was highlighted as a significant concern, with senators observing that Chinese investments in energy, mining, and digital infrastructure in developing regions provide Beijing with long-term leverage over critical resources and political alliances. To counter China’s expanding geopolitical reach, senators proposed strengthening US alliances in Asia and Latin America by deepening strategic partnerships with countries such as India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Latin American allies.
Senators emphasized that the massive trade deficit with China, which has surpassed $400 billion annually, has severely impacted American manufacturing, agriculture, and industrial sectors, leading to job losses and economic vulnerabilities.
Senator Bill Cassidy highlighted that China continues to flood global markets with artificially cheap goods, particularly in steel, semiconductors, and solar panels, driving American competitors out of business. Senator John Cornyn warned that China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) strengthens its economic dominance by creating debt dependencies in developing nations, enabling Beijing to export its overcapacity while undermining US trade influence. Senator Todd Young proposed using tariffs to pressure China into fulfilling its commitment to purchase $200 billion in additional US agricultural products, which it has yet to fully meet.
Ultimately, the best strategy for the USA is not to pull China down but to elevate itself through technological advancements, economic discipline, and sound policymaking. By fostering an environment that rewards innovation and competitiveness, the U.S. can position itself as a leader in global trade—not through protectionism, but through excellence and efficiency.
Scott Bessent and Republican senators advocated for tariffs as the primary tool to correct trade imbalances and protect domestic industries from China’s state-backed economic aggression. Bessent outlined a tariff strategy that includes imposing selective tariffs on industries where China has gained an unfair advantage through government subsidies and forced technology transfers, using tariff revenues to fund American infrastructure and industrial revitalization, and leveraging tariffs as a negotiation tool to compel China to adhere to fair trade agreements and prevent further economic distortions.
The Committee members and Scott Bessent were unanimous in viewing tariffs as the primary weapon in the economic battle against China. However, they differed widely on how this weapon should be deployed. Some senators advocated for an aggressive tariff regime aimed at safeguarding US manufacturers from China’s cost-effective yet high-quality products and services.
However, this stance largely ignored the underlying inefficiencies within American manufacturing, the need for technological upgrades, and strategies to lower production costs. Others struck a middle ground, proposing a selective and strategic use of tariffs by targeting specific products and services where increased duties would not disrupt domestic manufacturing efficiency or unduly burden American consumers.
A recurring argument made by senators was that China engages in unfair trade practices by subsidizing its industries, allowing them to produce goods at lower costs, thereby outcompeting US businesses. However, this criticism overlooked a crucial aspect: the US government itself employs similar mechanisms to support select industries through tax incentives, tax breaks, reduced levies, and regulatory advantages. These policies, while not explicitly labelled subsidies, serve the same purpose— boosting domestic industries while limiting competition from foreign markets.
Moreover, the senators failed to acknowledge that many Chinese industries, rather than being propped up by state subsidies, are highly profitable and contribute significant tax revenues. These revenues are then reinvested in struggling sectors, infrastructure, and research and development, reinforcing China’s economic growth and global competitiveness.
Rather than focusing solely on weakening China’s economic progress through tariffs, a more effective long-term strategy for the USA would be to strengthen its own industries through structural reforms. This would include improving manufacturing efficiency, reducing bureaucratic red tape, accelerating decision-making processes, and significantly increasing investment in research and development. Enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of American manufacturers would be a more sustainable solution than imposing reactionary tariffs.
Ultimately, the best strategy for the USA is not to pull China down but to elevate itself through technological advancements, economic discipline, and sound policymaking. By fostering an environment that rewards innovation and competitiveness, the U.S. can position itself as a leader in global trade—not through protectionism, but through excellence and efficiency.
