America is locked in a decisive technological and economic contest with the Chinese Communist Party, and the stakes could not be higher for our security and prosperity. Winning this fight will demand clear public policy, but it will also require tough accountability from corporate boardrooms that still treat market access to China as the default priority. This piece argues that our tech strategy must put American interests first, starting with transparency and concrete rules for U.S. firms operating in strategic sectors.
Too many discussions treat government action as the only tool, as if Congress and the White House alone will determine who wins. The private sector is often the force multiplier that tips the balance, especially in cutting-edge fields like semiconductors, 5G, and artificial intelligence. Companies that prioritize short-term sales in authoritarian markets can quietly undo years of hard-fought policy gains.
Take a headline example: a major American semiconductor firm relies on China for nearly half its revenue, creating obvious pressure to appease Beijing. That kind of dependence shapes business choices, from pricing and licensing to where research and development flows. When revenue becomes leverage, U.S. national security pays a hidden tax.
Those commercial choices matter beyond profits. There are documented cases where U.S. capital and know-how helped Chinese surveillance and military-linked projects develop faster than they otherwise would have. We must not ignore instances where U.S. investments supported companies implicated in human rights abuses or where technologies helped states monitor and control populations. As the government observed about some sanctioned entities, democracies must act against those that “inflict suffering and repression.”
Corporate behavior in China has also included negotiated regulatory outcomes that favor local firms, from antitrust settlements to licensing discounts and investment commitments. Those deals can leave U.S. manufacturers and allies at a structural disadvantage in global markets. When American companies accept preferential terms for Chinese customers, they undercut domestic competitors and strengthen an adversary’s industrial base.
The market consequences hurt everyday Americans. Favorable pricing and licensing in China can shift supply chains, reduce domestic innovation incentives, and tilt handset and device markets toward low-cost foreign manufacturers. Consumers get cheap gadgets, but the long-term cost is strategic: diminished capabilities among U.S. and allied producers and greater dependency on systems shaped by Beijing.
Policy must respond with practical transparency requirements that empower investors, regulators, and the public. Public companies should disclose how much of their revenue depends on adversary states, whether they offer preferential terms there, and the nature of any investments tied to military or surveillance projects. That information lets markets price risk correctly and gives policymakers the data needed to target real threats.
Boards and CEOs, meanwhile, have clear, simple choices. Stop licensing structures that favor Chinese manufacturers over American and allied firms. Exit or refuse investments that sustain blacklisted activities or boost foreign military capabilities. Compete hard abroad—just not at the expense of our national security.
The GOP should lead on this front by pushing for sharper export controls, smarter tariffs, and clear disclosure laws that protect both our economy and our freedoms. Republicans can make a persuasive case for fairness: firms that benefit from the rule of law at home must not hollow out the strategic foundations that keep America free. This is common-sense, pro-growth national security policy.
Companies operating in strategic industries have a simple test ahead: continue trading away leverage for short-term market access, or realign behavior to compete on American terms and help set the rules for the free world. The choice will shape who defines technology standards, who controls critical supply chains, and whether American values guide the next wave of innovation.
