is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. Trade Representative, and a substacker. He joins ChinaTalk to discuss:

• Why his 1992 dissertation on détente is suddenly relevant again – and why “positive linkage” fails to change adversary behavior,

• How mutual assured destruction has shifted from nuclear weapons to rare earths, supply chains, and technology, and why the U.S. and China are stuck in a costly, uncomfortable stalemate,

• How think tanks work — salary levels, where the money comes from, and what to expect from Mike’s tenure.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Détente Redux

Jordan Schneider: We’re going to take it all the way back to 1992. You did your dissertation about this idea of détente and how it evolved from the ’50s all the way through the end of the Reagan administration. Coming to your conclusion, the echoes of where we are today and that theme seem to be very striking. Why don’t you pick a quote and then kick it off from there?

Mike Froman: “To retain the support of the American public, U.S.-Soviet relations must be based on reciprocity. Détente suffered no greater liability than the public’s perception that the Soviets exploited it at the United States’ expense. To be reciprocal, however, U.S. policy must embody reasonable expectations.”

Mike Froman: I thought I was writing a historic piece. The end of the Cold War came. I put the book on the shelf, thought it would never be opened again. And yet, Jordan, there you found it and indeed have highlighted that there might be some relevance to the U.S.-China relationship today.

Jordan Schneider: I played this game with Kurt Campbell. He did his thesis on Soviet relations with South Africa and the tensions of how the U.S. navigated that dynamic. Everything’s coming back.

We’re sitting here in the fall of 2025. We have a president who is probably as far towards the “let’s do détente” mindset as you could have gotten in this political moment. What do you think are the bounds of what an American president today could domestically go towards if they were in a détente mindset?

Mike Froman: The issue of détente back in the old Soviet days was — was it a strategy to transform the Soviet Union by engaging with it, or was it a reflection that we had to engage with it because we had overwhelming common interests? Some of those are the same questions that come up today in the U.S.-China relationship. Do we think we can fundamentally change the trajectory of China, or do we just simply have to accept it and live with it, coexist with it, and create some rules of the road for managing potential conflicts?

Any president right now figuring out how to coexist with China will have to determine — where do we need to cooperate on issues of national security? Where do we have to compete around the economy and technology? And where do we have to be very careful to manage potential conflicts that could blow up and create a kinetic conflict between us — whether around Taiwan, the South China Sea, or otherwise? Balancing those different baskets of interests is the most challenging thing for any administration to deal with.

Jordan Schneider: You wrote, “The theory of using détente as a means of transformation was based largely on the misguided assumption that the U.S. could use cooperation on common interests as a source of leverage over conflicting ones. Positive linkage was not particularly effective, however, because success in areas of common interest did not easily translate into success in areas of divergent ones.”

You published this book in 1992, which is a key moment of translating that kind of — in your estimation — flawed thinking of how we went about this with the Soviet Union to the next 25 or 30 years of American policy towards China. Can you talk about those parallels?

Mike Froman: Yes. The U.S.-China relationship is quite a bit different than the U.S.-Soviet relationship, first and foremost because of our economic interdependence. Russia and the Soviet Union were never terribly significant economic players in the global economy, whereas China very much is. We have developed over the last several decades a great deal of interdependence with them.

The leverage question’s a little bit different. Could you use economic leverage — the fact that we have a common interest in maintaining strong trade relations — as positive linkage into other issues? Or could you cooperate in areas like climate change, which both sides thought at one point were of common interest, and translate that into broader cooperation in other issues?

Having said all that, you’re right to point out that it’s proved to be relatively limited. In China’s view, they in many respects separated areas of common interest from areas of potential conflict and from areas of competition, and were unwilling to allow cooperation in one area to really affect their interests and how they pursue them in the others.

Jordan Schneider: What is your sense of why the theory of the case was so directly ported over to China? The argument through the Clinton administration, Bush administration, first half of Obama was basically — we’re going to develop leverage, develop these common interests and they’ll see the light. We didn’t get that these are both two party-led systems. There are some commonalities, but there are pieces of learning that maybe folks overlooked from that experience. It felt like a brave new world. Given your view over the past 30 years of this arc, what do you think got lost in translation there?

Mike Froman: If the Cold War was defined at least in part by an ideological battle between Western liberal, capitalist, market-oriented, democratic-oriented principles and the communist totalitarian principles of the former Soviet Union, the view at the end of the Cold War was that it was much more of a unipolar moment. Not necessarily U.S. hegemony, but the hegemony of the open liberal democratic capitalist perspective.

That was embraced by China. If you go back to the days of Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji and the reform trajectory that they laid out, they were very much on the path towards market-oriented reforms, opening up — not necessarily democracy. Those who thought that opening up on the economic side would lead to political pluralism were probably being overly optimistic. But there was certainly a view that China was on a path towards greater integration in the global economy, which they have been, and greater market-oriented policies to help lead them there.

They were on that trajectory for quite a while. It didn’t go as far or as fast and it wasn’t as linear as people expected. The advent of President Xi, who was willing to either stop or reverse some of those reforms, was probably not as anticipated as proved to be necessary.

There was this dominance of a set of principles that we thought could bring China into the international system and bring the U.S. and China into a more cooperative relationship. What happened was that China changed course and didn’t go as far as we expected. Indeed, China reversed many of the gains that we thought we had seen.

Escalation Dominance and Stalemate

Jordan Schneider: Escalation dominance — a phrase we thought was dead and dusted in the bin of history — is now back. Is this the right mental framework folks should be using when thinking about these trade wars? What is and isn’t useful when trying to take the arms control frameworks and put them onto what you’re seeing with the U.S. and China with respect to economics and technology?

Mike Froman: There certainly is a rigorous competition between the two in technology, economics, and military. The Chinese buildup of both its conventional and nuclear forces is very much top of mind.

Where the analogy may play out — it does come from nuclear weapons, but it’s not necessarily the escalation issues. It’s really back to the notion of mutual assured destruction. What we’ve seen more recently in the U.S.-China relationship is we have leverage in terms of access to our markets and access to our technology, but China too has leverage in terms of their capacity to control critical choke points of key technologies — whether it’s critical minerals, rare earths, magnets, et cetera. That’s, in my view, probably just the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of technologies and products that they control and that they have now demonstrated a willingness to use their leverage with us.

If anything, we’ve reached a stalemate where both sides realize that neither can escalate in a costless way. Indeed, it may require them to sit down and come up with some rules of the road for managing the relationship going forward.

Jordan Schneider: There’s this misreading of the history of the Cold War that once you had mutually assured destruction, everything was cool by the 1970s, which, as you as well as anyone know, was not necessarily the case. You had both countries developing new weapons systems and wrestling for that nuclear primacy and escalation dominance.

If we are in a world now where the U.S. and China both understand that they can take big, painful chunks of GDP without going to war or doing incredibly aggressive cyber attacks, where does that lead us? Because the game doesn’t stop, right? We’re still having different moves that both sides can play.

Mike Froman: Exactly. The competition doesn’t stop. As you said, back in the Cold War, it wasn’t all sweetness and light once you hit mutual assured destruction, but it did prevent a direct nuclear exchange between the two largest nuclear powers. They had to find other ways of positioning vis-à-vis each other, whether through proxy wars or other elements that allowed them to try and gain some advantage over each other.

That’s probably true here in the China relationship as well. It’s likely to lead to a certain degree of selective decoupling, whether it’s on advanced technology issues where we’ll go our way and China will go its way. The question is for the rest of the relationship — to what degree can there be a normalization of trade and other interactions?

There is a lot of non-strategic trade. The Trump administration is evolving in its views towards — what can we actually grow or produce here in the United States and where do we actually need to import from other countries? Can we take T-shirts and sneakers and toys from China without compromising our national security? I would think so. Allowing them in at a decent rate is good for particularly low-income Americans who spend a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on the basics of supporting their family.

But there are likely to be some technologies that we’re going to want to keep out of China’s hands, and China is going to have some choke point technologies that they can control over us. Hopefully that again reaches some sort of balance.

Jordan Schneider: Say we’re in 2028 and both countries have had three years to do more economic securitization and the size and amount of the bites that each country can take out of the other one diminishes. America has a few more mines. China does a better job of making semiconductors. Is the world in a more or less safe place? Or does just the fact that each side is still going to have this leverage — if they are the world’s two largest economies and still do trade — is that still the salient thing? Does playing around the edges even mean all that much?

Mike Froman: It’s unclear at this point because it’s very much a work in progress. It’s only been in the last few months that we’ve seen China’s willingness not only to turn off access to a particular batch of technologies like the magnets back in April 2025, but demonstrate a willingness to put in place a whole export control licensing system which could disrupt global supply chains in fundamental ways. They’ve now demonstrated their capacity to do that. We’ll see how they actually go about implementing it.

This ultimately could be, ironically, a force for stability with each side recognizing that the other side has some significant leverage. But to me, the bigger issue is we’re not really dealing with the other very significant questions in the relationship. The summit that President Trump and President Xi had in Korea — the main issues were fentanyl, soybeans and TikTok. We’re not asking ourselves: how do we get to the fundamental relationship between the two economies around China’s strategy of export-led growth, excess capacity, high subsidization of critical areas? How do we deal with that and the potential ongoing tensions that’s likely to create going forward?

Whether we’re on a more stable or a less stable path, in my view, depends on whether we get to those underlying issues and try and resolve some of those. Those have not yet been put back on the table, let alone issues like Taiwan, South China Sea, North Korea, nonproliferation, et cetera.

Jordan Schneider: We just had a whole conversation about how using international diplomacy as a means of domestic transformation is a bit of a fool’s errand, right?

Mike Froman: It’s not about domestic transformation. If you remember back in the Soviet Union, the idea was if we engaged with them or took other actions vis-à-vis them, somehow their system would collapse. They would see the values of democracy, the values of market orientation and everything would fall apart. They would inevitably collapse.

This isn’t about making China collapse. It’s about seeing whether we can come up with rules of the road so that China and the rest of the global economy can coexist without undue tension. Right now we’re not really dealing with those issues.

Jordan Schneider: If we’re defining “dealing with those issues” — for my first job out of college, I covered trade policy for the Eurasia Group. I was listening to every single one of your speeches trying to figure out if this meant like the U.S.-China BIT was 7% more likely to happen.

With the second Trump administration, there are two disjunctures that we’ve seen from the past 20 years of American foreign policymaking. The biggest one is just the risk tolerance and the ability to take big swings that may end up being either illegal or backfiring horribly, which the presidents that you worked for were a little more reluctant to do, for better or for worse.

Subscribe now

If you’re sitting as USTR and you have the threat of putting 50% tariffs on the countries you’re negotiating with — be it China with a U.S.-China BIT or with all the allies that you were talking around with the TPP — to what extent do you think that unlocks new political economies and new negotiating paths that weren’t possible if at the end of the day you have a president who just wants to be nice to the countries that we have treaty allies with?

Mike Froman: The Trump administration’s threat and use of tariffs has created very significant negotiating leverage and has gotten countries to come to the table on a whole range of issues — whether it’s fentanyl, migration, or economic issues — and to agree to things that they previously would very likely not have agreed to. The administration in the short run has very much demonstrated that access to the U.S. market is a source of negotiating leverage and other countries have responded to it. They haven’t been happy about responding to it but that’s okay.

The question is what are the longer-term implications and whether it makes it more difficult to gain their cooperation on some other issue down the road. But only time will tell. In the meantime, if you had asked people a year ago whether we would have this raft of agreements that the administration has rolled out with anywhere between 10% and 25% or 30% tariffs on other countries — quite asymmetric agreements in many respects — most people would have said it was highly unlikely, but it has proven to be the case.

Purely from a negotiating point of view, if you have the capacity with credibility to put tariffs on regardless of your international obligations and regardless of the long-term implications, you can probably get a fair amount done in the short run.

By the way, the Trump administration’s skepticism about some of the mechanisms of engagement with China — like these big bilateral fora that we managed for years: the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the Security Economic Dialogue, et cetera — I share some of that skepticism. They involved thousands of person-hours of work and produced communiqués which I don’t think necessarily advanced the ball that far and show the limitations of that form of diplomatic engagement.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t other forms of engagement that make sense, including ones backed up by a series of potential actions. But certainly it’s healthy to look back and say, what did these things accomplish and where can we do better?

Jordan Schneider: Looking forward, if there is a Democratic president in 2028 — a president that you would want to work for, who was less scared to play hardball the way the Trump administration has when it comes to access to the American domestic market — a president that you would be more sympathetic to in terms of their ultimate aims, where would you want to see the new leverage that has clearly been brought to the fore when it comes to domestic market access? How would you want to use those cards?

Mike Froman: Ultimately, it’s in the U.S. interest not to go it alone in a lot of areas, but to bring allies and partners into the arena. Using whatever leverage we have to get allies and partners to work with us on difficult issues — including a common approach to competition, a common approach to adversaries, a common approach to national defense, whether it’s support for NATO or engagement vis-à-vis China — those are all very important.

We don’t have to have everything reshored to the United States. If we have coalitions of the willing, coalitions of the ambitious, trusted allies and partners who we can work with to make sure we’ve got adequate supply to critical inputs that we need for our national security and for our competitiveness more broadly — I would use whatever leverage the U.S. has to bring our allies and partners to the table with that goal in mind.

Jordan Schneider: This idea of economic security is very nebulous. The Fed has this clear thing they’re trying to do — 2% inflation, full employment. It feels like all these discussions about what economic security is very quickly go into here’s what we should do for this sector, here’s what we do for that sector, here’s what we should do for this technology. But there’s not an overarching framework of what the end state we’re trying to achieve or work towards is.

I want to run an essay contest around how to define it in more concrete ways with numbers attached. How would you frame that question? If you had an answer or an equation off the top of your head, I’d be curious for that as well.

Mike Froman: First of all, you should read our recently released CFR task force report on economic security. The task force was co-chaired by Gina Raimondo, former Commerce Secretary, Justin Muzinich, former Treasury Deputy Secretary in the Trump administration, and Jim Taiclet, who’s the CEO of Lockheed. We had a couple dozen CFR members with a wide range of backgrounds in technology and defense.

I flag that because one of the fundamental sets of questions that the task force was focused on is — what are the parameters? What are the guardrails? What are the limiting principles on economic security?

For decades, the focus of economic policy really had been on efficiency — the most efficient supply chains around the world. Companies put their factories and sited their suppliers where it made most economic sense to do so. A lot of that ultimately led to China, given not just the labor differential, but also its infrastructure, its management practices, and just how efficient it was as a manufacturing floor for the U.S. We found ourselves overly dependent on one country, or in the case of semiconductors, on Taiwan and China.

What economic security fundamentally means is really proper risk management. The number one principle of risk management is diversification. You want diversified supply chains, resilient supply chains. Particularly when it comes to national security core interests — such as the materials that go into a missile or into an F-16 — we can’t be dependent on our adversary for them. Figuring out where to draw that line is the goal.

It’s easy to say missile parts, F-16 parts — we should not be dependent on China for those. But what about active pharmaceutical ingredients? What about the supply chain for semiconductors? What about PPE that we saw during COVID? Where do you draw the line?

That’s the big challenge for policymakers going forward because each of these involves a trade-off. There’s a reason the manufacturing was sited in China — it was the economically most efficient thing to do. Any other approach is going to be, almost by definition, more expensive, less efficient. That may well be worth the cost. The question is, how much are we willing to pay additional for whatever product it is in order to have more resilience, more redundancy, more diversification, and better national security?

We ought to be willing to pay something. The question is how much. Maybe we’re willing to pay a fair amount to make sure our semiconductors, our missile parts, our F-16 parts are made in the United States or in a close ally’s jurisdiction. But we may not be willing to pay quite as much to make sure our sneakers and our T-shirts and our socks are made in the United States. That’s the kind of conversation we should be having — really about trade-offs.

Jordan Schneider: My question was an implicit critique of that report because I think it skipped the base question and then went pretty quickly to this sector, that sector, the other sector.

Mike Froman: Let me push back on you, Jordan. It decided, instead of focusing just on the theoretical, to say — here are three critical sectors. We could have picked a dozen. Here are three critical sectors. Let’s see what it looks like through the lens of a particular use case. Whether it was AI, quantum, or biotechnology, those each have particular needs that need to be addressed. Everybody would agree that at least in those three areas, we need to be a leader in those technologies. How do we maintain that leadership?

Jordan Schneider: The core issue here is escalation dominance — when can China inflict enough politically visible pain on American policymakers to force them to back down?

When we define it down to even the non-perishable consumables — I am the father of a young child and hit this weird crunch where the tariffs made it such that you couldn’t find car seats because every car seat in the world is made in China, apparently. It just seems to me that there’s just so much that is going to be dependent on the two countries.

Maybe there’s some 80/20 or 90/10 principle where we’re still going to rely on China for 90% of the screws that go into the F-16s, and if they take 10% away, we’ll still have this much of our military capacity back. But closing the loop for all the things like you did in the 1960s relative to the U.S. and Soviet Union is not feasible.

It seems like there are two relevant variables here. One is the long-term GDP cut that China can make from being dominant in something. The other is how much short-term political pain can an adversary use to squeeze American policymakers to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise want to do. Is there another aspect to it? Am I missing something here?

Mike Froman: That captures it. But what you’re pointing out is very much the importance of distinguishing between the strategic and the non-strategic. That points to the broader relationship as well.

In the Biden administration, it was the phrase “small yard, high fence.” What goes in the yard for control, and how small can you keep it? They were pretty selective and pretty targeted in terms of how they viewed that. Maybe some things would need to be added, maybe some things can come out of it. But the question is: what should be deemed as strategic either from the perspective of keeping key technologies out of China’s hands or ensuring that we have redundancy so we’re not overly dependent on China? And what can go anyway? What can be sold anyway?

Even in the height of the Cold War, we were buying wheat from the Soviet Union. Wheat was seen as non-strategic and we could buy wheat from them and still be at odds over various issues. With China, where are we willing to draw that line? To me, that’s really the question for the next phase. As the Trump administration engages now, there’s been a stabilization of escalation and de-escalation. The next phase should be: how are we going to define this relationship going forward?

Jordan Schneider: The ability to cause pain to the other side is always going to be there, but what tool you use to cause pain is the question. We’ve thankfully had some great norms develop around the use of nuclear weapons. We’ve had some norms around the use of conventional forces — TBD on those. All of the cyber stuff between the U.S. and China thus far has been of the snooping, not of the blowing up power plants variety.

But the fundamental question I have around economic security is — say that China wants to retain leverage on the U.S. and get politicians to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do in their druthers. It just seems like there are so many levers that you can pull as a peer competitor in the 2000s. It makes me worried that we’re working toward an end state of being resilient if the other side doesn’t want you to be resilient. It seems like a marathon where the end isn’t even something that’s realistic. You see what I’m getting at, Mike?

Mike Froman: I do. I sense that you’re feeling overwhelmed by the challenge. But that should be our opportunity to rise to the challenge. There’s a certain urgency, I believe, in one, assessing what the key dependencies are. And two, assessing what it takes to address them. Is it a combination of tariffs, industrial policy, investment, and regulatory changes? What is the toolbox that we need?

Thinking very strategically about that — including where allies and partners can play a role because they’ve got capacity in certain areas that we don’t, or because they can supplement our capacity and help us get to scale more quickly — and building a bipartisan, ongoing consensus around what it takes is an urgent need. That helps you get to that point of saying, yes, it may seem overwhelming, but you’ve got to start somewhere.

That’s what we’re doing right now. That’s what the CHIPS and Science Act did during the Biden administration. It said we cannot be 100% dependent on Taiwan and China for the packaging, etc., of chips. We’re going to begin to rebuild chip manufacturing capacity in the United States. The question is, what additional sectors do we need to do?

Take shipbuilding. Everybody believes we need more ships, whether it’s for the Navy or for merchants or otherwise. We don’t have a huge amount of shipbuilding capacity anymore. Can we work with Japan, Korea, and Finland on icebreakers? Who can we partner with to get there?

Mission, Money, and Talent at the CFR

Jordan Schneider: You gave me a little transition there — building a bipartisan consensus for decades of policymaking going forward. That seems to double as your vision for what the point of a think tank or CFR is, particularly now. What are the KPIs we’re going to give for Mike Froman’s reign as president of the CFR?

Mike Froman: Our mission is to inform U.S. engagement with the world. There are lots of different ways to engage. Our job is to flesh out what are the different mechanisms for engaging with these goals in mind that we’ve just been talking about. What are the trade-offs involved? What are the costs and benefits of going down one path or the other and helping policymakers in their decision of how to pursue that? Also helping opinion leaders and the broader American public understand and get their input on which of those trade-offs they’re comfortable with. That’s an important part of what the Council does.

We’re focused on policymakers like most think tanks, but we’re also focused on the broader American public through broad education efforts and media efforts, digital, etc., programs around the rest of the country with the goal of getting their input into how they view the role of the U.S. in the world and to help inform policymakers accordingly.

Jordan Schneider: How are you going to do things differently? What’s the Mike Froman twist on all this?

Mike Froman: We’re taking a step back and saying, just as the Council did — the Council was founded in 1921 after the end of the First World War, after the defeat of the League of Nations — to organize around trying to push back against trends of isolationism. In 1948, it was a place where the Marshall Plan and NATO were very much being worked on. In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, there was a lot of talk about geoeconomics and bringing economics into the national security sphere as well.

This is another one of those inflection points. As a Council, we’re going to take a step back and say, where do we go from here? We’re going through a major disruption right now. Fundamental questions about the nature of the global economy, of the trading system, of alliances, of how to manage adversaries, how to compete — these are all on the table. How can we help policymakers and the broader public understand different options for pursuing U.S. national interests and the trade-offs involved in each?

It’s a major studies effort, a major research and analysis effort, but also a major education effort — engaging with more audiences, non-traditional audiences, different kinds of media to engage with the rest of the country and get a sense of their input as well.

Jordan Schneider: From an internal organization structure perspective, what do you think of the model? What needs to change?

Mike Froman: The Council’s been around for a long time and is actually well-positioned for this moment in history because we’re not just a think tank focused on trying to influence the couple thousand people in Washington that are sitting in these meetings and trying to make decisions. We’re also focused — as a membership organization, a publisher of Foreign Affairs, an educational organization that provides material to high schools and colleges — on the broader American public. We do events all over the country. We’re relatively well hedged to both work with policymakers on one hand and work with the rest of the country on the other hand.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about money for a second. I assume you were on the other side of this in terms of large corporations funding various research efforts. What do you think about where funding comes from for think tanks in general, CFR in particular, and what makes sense and what doesn’t?

Mike Froman: Our funding’s obviously all public. It’s all on our website. It’s transparent. We don’t take any money from any government institution, including the U.S. government. We don’t take any money from corporations for research. Corporates can be members like other members and send their employees to our events, but they can’t involve themselves or set the agenda or influence our research agenda. That allows us to remain nonpartisan, allows us to remain independent. It’s one of the reasons that both our research and analysis and our publications are viewed highly as being independent and credible in that space.

What that means is we rely on — we’re a membership organization, so individuals pay dues. We’re blessed to have members who are philanthropic. We get money from foundations, some of the standard foundations that work in this area. That’s where our funding comes from. We have an endowment that’s been built up over the years as well, again, because of the generosity of our individual members.

Jordan Schneider: I’ve been on the other side of this, where you have a funder who is a corporation that wants you to write a certain thing. Do you think it’s unseemly? The dance is tricky, right? But without that, it would kind of only be CFR and Heritage left standing. There’s a lot of foreign government money as well.

Mike Froman: I’m not going to criticize my peers. I would just say that we’re lucky and we have a concerted strategy to make sure that we’re able to remain independent. That means no government money, no corporate money for research. That allows our fellows total freedom of speech. They can write whatever they like. As an institution, we take no institutional positions. We try to put our best research and analysis out there and make it available as broadly as possible.

Why are salaries so low

Jordan Schneider: Entry-level research associates come in with a $55K to $58K pay band at CFR. What are your thoughts on that, Mike?

Mike Froman: We would love to — we’re very lucky to have a great set of research assistants and entry-level people. There are a lot of people who want to go into the field of international relations. This is their first job. By the way, we view one of our core objectives of CFR as helping to identify, promote, and develop the next generation of diverse foreign policy expertise. We spend a lot of effort and time — whether it’s our interns, our research assistants, our junior staff, our term members — really focused on who the up-and-coming generation are, and what we can do to help them develop the skills and the expertise to succeed in that field.

As a nonprofit, obviously we’re subject to constraints, but we always look at what the market is and try our best to make sure we’re getting the very best quality people for the resources that we can expend.

Jordan Schneider: But it’s not a lot of money, right? These are really big, hard, important questions. It bums me out that we lose talent because folks who are coming out of school with debt or just see an opportunity to make 4x right out of college look at this field and say, “How can I go down this route?” It breaks my heart, really.

Mike Froman: Having been at the beginning of my career once upon a time, I can relate to that. Luckily, we have a lot of interest in the Council by people coming out of college, coming out of graduate school. There’s significant demand for the openings that we have. We have a great group of junior staff and research assistants. I’m really impressed with them, and we take a lot of effort to make sure we’re doing everything we can to develop them professionally.

But I also say, Jordan, we’d be delighted to take a major donation from you to the Council to help endow a new research assistance endowment program if you like.

Jordan Schneider: That was my next question. I am surprised that there isn’t some rich person out there who doesn’t want to have the next generation all be Mr. and Mrs. X fellows. Then they get to make $10 or $20 grand more. It’s not that much money in the grand scheme of things for all of the kudos and accolades you would get and all of these fresh young faces saying thank you so much, Mr. or Mrs. Whoever.

Mike Froman: We have been very fortunate to have some of those donors participate.

Jordan Schneider: How do you split your time? What’s the weekly daily pie chart? You’re now a take artist on Substack as well. How do you think about where your time should be spent?

Mike Froman: I live in Washington, and I spend about three days a week on average in New York and two days a week at our office here. Every week’s a little different. I travel around the rest of the country as well, doing events for CFR members and others.

I split my time between my own research and writing — as you say, I have a weekly column that I put out on Fridays that then gets posted on Substack. It’s part of our newsletter as well. I spend a lot of time working with our senior leadership team on our programming here, making sure that we are presenting a nonpartisan slate of participants here on our stage for events on all the major issues. I spend a certain amount of my time on internal management. We’ve got a great management team here, so I’ve been able to defer to a lot of them in terms of managing people and systems and things here, budgets, etc. Of course, a certain amount of time on fundraising. I do a bit with the press, a bit with the media to be helpful and out there. That fills a week.

Jordan Schneider: If you took a pill and could sleep 10 fewer hours a week, where do you think you would spend it? Doesn’t have to be on the job.

Mike Froman: On the job, I would probably spend it digging further into our research and analysis and doing more in that area. That’s the direction I’m heading in. I’ve been here for a couple years. I wanted to spend the first couple years really getting my arms around the place as an institution. Now I’m working more closely with the fellows on this big project of taking a step back — our Future of American Strategy initiative — and looking at some of these big questions going forward.

Jordan Schneider: It’s a weird time, right? Doing the work that I do in Trump one or Biden felt like the residence was much more direct to the sorts of wavelengths that the most important decision makers in the country were on. Now we’re in a brave new world. There are lots of strains of thinking in American policymaking.

Going back to the 1940s and the origin story of CFR — man, isolationism is back. We got Nazis going on the most popular right-wing podcasts. Doing things in the normal, mainstream way, trying to optimize for the solutions that you, me, George H.W. Bush would all see as reasonable goals for American policymaking is not shared by a significant chunk of one of the two parties in America.

In this new paradigm we’re in, to what extent do the bounds of thinking, the ways of working in a mainstream foreign policy think tank, have to change? On the other hand, in which ways should things stay the same?

Mike Froman: First of all, I don’t view President Trump or his administration as isolationist. You can’t be isolationist and talk about taking over the Panama Canal, Canada, and Greenland. That’s expansionist. This president has spent more of his first 10 months on foreign policy — whether it’s getting involved in particular conflicts, traveling abroad, hosting foreign leaders — probably more than just about any other president in recent memory. He is deeply engaged in the world.

As I said, our mission is to inform U.S. engagement in the world. There are lots of different ways to engage. He is engaging with it in a different way than several of his predecessors, but he is deeply engaged. For a think tank that’s focused on that, it is to say — this is the way this president is engaged. What are the costs and benefits? What are the trade-offs involved? What are the alternatives? What could be done to ensure ultimately that the U.S. meets its national interests? That’s what our role has always been. That’s what our role is now.

Jordan Schneider: What do you think are the unique challenges of this job relative to others you’ve had in your career?

Mike Froman: That’s a great question. I worked in the public sector. I’ve worked in the private sector. This is the first time I’m running a nonprofit organization, a think tank. The challenge is to maintain its position as a nonpartisan, independent source of research and analysis in what is a very partisan environment. Every day we think, how do we make sure, whether it’s our membership or the people who participate in our meetings and are put on stage or the engagement we have with the administration, how do we make sure that we are fulfilling our obligation as a nonpartisan institution going forward? That is a new and different level of challenge now probably than in the past, just because of the broader nature of the political environment.

Jordan Schneider: Do you spend much time with AI? Have you been using it to research or write at all?

Mike Froman: Not really.

Jordan Schneider: Maybe this is my pitch to you, Mike. The tools are enabling young talent to learn much faster and be much more prolific than they ever were in the past. My critique of the model that I grew up with — you have senior fellows and then you have RAs who hang out for two or three years and then go on their merry way, and most of their job is directly supporting or just serving as a research assistant to someone senior — what the research tools which now exist allow folks who are really sharp and motivated to do is just get up these knowledge hills much more quickly.

Obviously there are things that ChatGPT can’t teach you. A lot of this think tank game is one of relationships, be that with folks in Washington or in the media or what have you, or the subtleties of how to shape an idea so that it will resonate with different audiences. On the more contentful learning stuff, you can run a lot further as a 23-year-old than you could even 10 years ago. I would encourage — challenge, maybe — you and the organization to imagine raising the bar for what the top tier of young talent can aspire to do.

Mike Froman: To that point, Jordan, we started about a year ago opening the door for our RAs to publish on CFR.org in conjunction with their fellows or on their own as well, recognizing, as you say, first of all, we have a terrific group of people with or without AI tools and quite expert in their own way for their stage in their career. We wanted to give them an opportunity to develop their portfolios as well.

Jordan Schneider: Cool. Two thumbs up for that.

It’s clear that demand exceeds supply for policy analysis roles. I see this when I put job descriptions out. I’m sure you guys see it as well. There are people willing to not make a lot of money to do this work because they think it’s really interesting and really important. It seems like we, as a country, are leaving some money on the table from an idea generation perspective. The fact that we don’t just have 10 times as many people trying to understand what makes the Chinese rare earths ecosystem tick… where are we on the production curve of idea generation for think tanks?

Mike Froman: It’s probably always been more applicants than roles for these kinds of jobs. It’s probably particularly acute right now just because changes in the government mean that a lot of people who expected to go into the government or into the intelligence community are probably not seeing the same pathways that they saw before. Same thing for a lot of NGOs or nonprofits, particularly in the development field. People who are planning on going into that area are probably seeing the jobs disappear.

On the positive side, virtually every company is figuring out that they need geopolitical advice. They need to understand the impact of the changing geopolitical environment on their business. Many of them are setting up offices to bring in people with foreign policy interests and ideas into their ecosystem. That’s another avenue that didn’t fully exist five or 10 years ago and now is a much more vibrant part of the market for ideas. It’s think tanks, obviously, being one piece of it. Universities also. But then the private sector is now another place where people can go and develop careers if they have an interest in this area. Can I ask you a question Jordan? Who among the CFR fellows is your favorite.

Jordan Schneider: Oh man, I don’t know if I can choose…

It’s interesting, right, this whole think tank model, because on the one hand, you are these independent atoms, kind of like professors who can do their own thing. But I imagine also as a president, you want to see synergies develop in-house, as opposed to if one’s sitting here and the other is at Brookings.

Given that you have all these stallions who are going to want to run in their different directions, how do you think about to what extent you’re going to want to get them playing together and rowing in the same direction versus going off and optimizing their time how they want?

Mike Froman: What I hear from you, Jordan, is that we have so much great talent that you can’t possibly choose who is the best one. I appreciate that endorsement of CFR.

To answer your question, because it is timely and it is one of the things that I brought to the Council as a bit of an innovation — we’re doing a lot more collaboration among the fellows. runs our China Strategy Initiative and he pulls in a wide range of fellows from CFR, but also from other think tanks and universities into his project to answer questions — What is China thinking? What is China doing? How do we compete and how do we engage? Those are the four pillars of his initiative. It involves dozens of folks across the Council, including our cadre of China fellows.

We’ve done the same, for example, on economics. Our Real Econ initiative, which is Reimagining American Economic Leadership, now has about a dozen or so fellows who touch trade and economics in one form or another and are working together on a whole series of projects. That’s a little bit new for the Council — these clusters of fellows coming together, working on collective projects, as well as working on their own books and their other projects. As you said, it adds that synergy. It’s not about having them all pull in the same direction intellectually because we welcome the diversity of their perspectives, but adding them together and seeing what we can produce on China, on economics, on technology, on energy and climate in ways that are additional is very important.

Jordan Schneider: One person you didn’t name is Tanner Greer, in the Rush Doshi extended universe. The other failure mode, which you have thankfully avoided, is this deification of PhDs as the only way to have relevant credentials or insight that would allow you to play under the bright lights of a CFR fellowship. Tanner has had a classic China arc of living in the PRC, speaking, teaching grade school, being a tutor, and just having a blog on the side. He’s one of the most well-read and thoughtful people. He also provides a little bit of ideological diversity to the building, which is important in these trying times. I’m really excited to see what he does with those extra tools and leverage that you guys can bring to him.

Mike Froman: Thank you for raising him. He’s a great new asset for us. Of course, he’s running our Open Source Observatory, which is this effort to do mass translations of Chinese public documents and make them available to scholars and policymakers so you can read in their own words what they are actually saying, which oftentimes proves to be actually quite relevant to the policy direction they’re taking their country.

Anon contributor “Soon Kueh” occasionally writes about China and delights in bureaucracy.

Disclaimer: All the quotes and information are obtained directly from Pin Ho and Wenguang Huang’s A Death in the Lucky Holiday Hotel: Murder, Money, and an Epic Power Struggle in China unless stated otherwise.

Under Xi’s regime, CCP purges have been exceptional in terms of quantity and quality. Xi has now purged more officials than Mao ever did, and he is not stopping. While purging is now a normalised feature of Xi’s rule, fresh rounds of purges always invite new political divinations, rumours of succession politics, and new speculations on the cabinet’s factional alignments.

While understanding realpolitik is fun, what about the fanfare, the drama, the campiness associated with purges? Unfortunately, because of the party’s opaque politics, we are rarely privy to the internal processes of a successful purge and can only debate about the outcomes once the dust settles. Alas, we can only imagine what it’s like being a fly on the wall in the recent PLA purge, but we can draw from memory to extrapolate. So far, the only crack that allowed us a rare glimpse into the party’s shrouded political intrigue occurred 13 years ago, during the purge of Bo Xilai. For longtime party watchers, it was a strangely serendipitous time to witness how the chips fell out of place — from Wang Lijun’s 王立军 botched defection at the American embassy, to Gu Kailai’s 谷开来 shoddy murder of British businessman Neil Heywood, and the resulting purge of Bo’s faction. Borrowing mainly from Pin Ho 何頻 and Wenguang Huang’s 黃聞光 A Death in the Lucky Holiday Hotel: Murder, Money, and an Epic Power Struggle in China, this article takes a trip down memory lane to revisit Bo’s fantastical downfall and indulges in a campiness rarely associated with the CCP.

Act 1: The Hero’s Return to Greatness

Our tale begins as a wǔxiá 武侠 novel, with Bo Xilai as our main protagonist, attempting a return to greatness. The revenge trope of the fallen prince is a common theme in the wǔxiá genre and Chinese historical dramas. Forced into exile, the disgraced noble prince swears to bide his time in the shadows as he slowly accumulates resources(韬光养晦 and plans for his return to glory.

As the son of former high-ranking revolutionary Bo Yibo 薄一波, Bo Xilai’s life fundamentally embodies this trope (although he is obviously not a conventional hero). Princeling by birth, his playmates included Xi Jinping and Liu Yuan 刘源, son of Liu Shaoqi. However, Bo’s life soon took a downturn when his father was purged during the Cultural Revolution and languished in jail for twelve years. As a result, Bo and his brothers were detained in a youth delinquency center for 5 years from 1967-1972. Bo’s life improved in his thirties, when his father was finally reinstated as vice premier. His father’s return to power signaled that young Bo’s exile was over and that it was finally appropriate for him to enter politics.

Tired of quietly lurking in the shadows, Bo’s political ambitions were obvious from the start. In 1982, he joined the Party Central Committee Secretariat as a research assistant. Following the playbook of elite officials who forged their careers by conducting revitalization efforts in the rural countryside, Bo requested a transfer in 1984 and was ultimately posted to Jin county 金县 in Liaoning. His career progressed steadily afterwards, alongside his vanity and flamboyance. In 1987, Bo became district party chief in Dalian, where he sought to beautify the city through extensive greenification (which was a questionable priority given the region’s severe water shortage) and heavy redevelopment. He was both an ambitious princeling and a debauched ruler. He had an unabashed love for beautiful women. At one point, he used government money to host fashion shows with gorgeous young women to demonstrate Dalian’s immense beauty, and even ordered the police department to create a squad of policewomen who patrolled on horseback. He was also aptly nicknamed “Bo Qilai” 薄起来, which translates to “Get-it-Up Bo” because of his lustfulness.

During his ascent, his burgeoning political ambitions ruffled many feathers. In 1994, he built Xinghai Square 星海广场, the largest city square in the world, to celebrate the handover of Hong Kong.

It wasn’t just the size that caught people’s attention, but the huábiǎo 华表 that was erected there. As a huábiǎo is a ceremonial column traditionally placed in front of tombs or palaces that usually signified imperial authority, many observers thought that this artistic decision revealed Bo’s thirst for influence — especially since the huábiǎo in Dalian was much larger than the one in Beijing. Rumors even alleged that Jiang Zemin was shocked when he first saw the huábiǎo in Dalian during a visit.

Like a classic wǔxiá novel where the protagonist must undergo many trials and tribulations, Bo’s career was not all smooth sailing. In fact, his final posting, Chongqing, was initially viewed as a demotion. But to be fair, Bo is no hero. In fact, it was his domineering personality that led to his Chongqing reassignment.

Bo was initially promoted to deputy party secretary and interim governor of Liaoning in 2001 after he left Dalian. (He was given a huge sendoff by residents, although some eventually disclosed that they were promised free KFC by local officials if they attended). However, because his strong-headed personality did not gel with the Liaoning leadership, President Hu Jintao brought him to Beijing to succeed ailing Commerce Minister Lu Fuyan 吕福源 in 2002. His stint at the Commerce Ministry earned him the unpleasant nickname “Mao Zedong Jr. 小毛泽东” and he clashed with his superior, Vice Premier Wu Yi 吴仪, who oversaw the ministry. Bo sought to replace Wu Yi when she announced her imminent retirement in 2008, but was thwarted by Wu’s objections. Against his will, Bo was posted to Chongqing as party secretary — although he eventually looked at it as an opportunity to exercise more political autonomy to implement his own policies.

Act 2: Every Hero Needs a Sidekick

Bo’s narrative arc is fascinating because of its capacity for genre-shifting. While his story initially resembles the return arc of The Dark Knight Rises, where Batman painstakingly crawls out of the underground prison to defeat Bane, Bo’s stint in Chongqing embodies the spirit of a classic buddy cop film, with a twist of tragicomedy.

Bo Xilai’s stint in Chongqing was unforgettable. His year-long “Smashing Black, Singing Red” 打黑唱红 anti-corruption campaign was implemented by 10,000 police, divided into 329 investigation teams. Allegedly, nearly 5,000 arrests were made and 3,273 people were prosecuted; 520 of these cases resulted in a conviction, with 65 people executed or sentenced to life imprisonment. In the same time frame, the “police successfully captured 4,172 previously unsolved cases and broke up 128 crime rings.” While later reports claimed that the numbers were heavily exaggerated, the operation’s massive scale was enough for Beijing to become wary of Bo.

In comes Bo’s loyal sidekick and fellow buddy cop Wang Lijun, who was responsible for executing much of the campaign. Wang was the former Chongqing police chief and deputy mayor. Bo and Wang’s initial connection has been the subject of much speculation, which often veers towards the fantastical. Supposedly, Wang was an elite cop who cracked the mysterious attempted mercury poisoning of Bo’s wife Gu Kailai after he was enlisted by family friend and billionaire Xu Ming 徐明. Unfortunately, the most realistic story is also the most boring: Wang was introduced to Bo by former security czar, Zhou Yongkang 周永康, who owed Wang a favour.

In many ways, Wang was as narcissistic as Bo, if not more. He always “had an entourage of more than twenty camera-carrying assistants” who followed him everywhere and recorded his every word and action. Quotes and pictures deemed good enough were then either “compiled into a book which included lavish praise from subordinates,” or posted on the news. If the photos taken were too ugly, the photographer needed to Photoshop them until Wang was satisfied. Wang was also a terrible boss. He once jailed his secretary for “talking back to him over a trivial matter.” In just two years in Chongqing, he burned through fifty-one personal secretaries; one was even fired on his first day. And like Bo, Wang had a love for women — his bodyguard posse mainly consisted of women decked in red uniforms.

But Wang was no princeling, a fact which clearly haunted him. He started from scratch as a volunteer in a neighbourhood watch group before becoming a police officer in Tieling 铁岭, Liaoning. Thereafter, he was posted to Jinzhou 锦州, Liaoning, and finally Chongqing. Much of Wang’s career involved a dash of deceit and savviness that easily rivalled Anna Delvy and Elizabeth Holmes. To take advantage of the affirmative action policies that benefit ethnic minorities, Wang switched his ethnicity from Han to Mongolian to contest for a delegate spot at the 14^th Communist Party Congress in 1992. To make up for his lack of college credentials, Wang embarked on a retroactive crusade to collect them all:

“His official résumé indicates that he obtained an [MBA]…at something called “California University” … Wang also obtained an eMBA from the China Northeastern Finance University between 2004 and 2006, when he was deputy mayor of Jinzhou. A professor at Beijing University said Wang’s eMBA degree has no academic value because the program is a revenue-generating engine for the university.”

Despite his suspicious credentials, “more than ten of China’s prestigious universities have made Wang an adjunct professor and doctoral supervisor.” The president of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications even claimed that Wang had a PhD in law. Chinese state media also reported that “Wang was an expert on forensics, criminal psychology, and law; had written five books on law; and had presided over eighteen legal-research projects.” Wang was supposedly also a genius inventor: he has filed more than 119 patents on China’s State Intellectual Property Office website, “from police equipment and alarm systems to police raincoats and policewomen’s boots.”

Wang’s inferiority complex found refuge in Bo’s princeling status. With Bo’s backing, Wang confidently unleashed Chongqing’s anti-corruption campaign that terrorized the city and made excessive surveillance and paranoia the new normal.

However, this camaraderie did not last long.

Act 3: The Slap that Ended it All

The genre shifts again. We are now regressing in time and now reside in the genre of the Chinese historical period drama, where political intrigue, murder, and petty catfights — alongside the occasional gender bender — unfold.

To say that a slap ended it all would be an exaggeration. But it is not entirely false to say that the slap did create the fissure that caused the cataclysmic fallout between Bo and Wang. But first, we must return to the catalyst: Neil Heywood’s murder.

Out of all the career switches an ESL tutor can make, Neil Heywood chose the riskiest option. He started working as an English tutor to affluent families in 1998. However, with the suave confidence of a white man in early reform China, Heywood reached out to Bo Xilai’s wife, Gu Kailai, and introduced himself as an alumnus of Harrow — an elite UK private school where Gu’s son Bo Guagua 薄瓜瓜 was studying. Gu agreed to meet Heywood in London thereafter, and the rest was history. Heywood successfully transitioned out of his teaching gig to become a part-time nanny and part-time money launderer — arguably the most successful ESL career switch in history.

Heywood and Gu’s relationship had always been intense, but their relationship became severely strained when Heywood ran out of money in 2011 and started harassing Bo Guagua. (Heywood even forcibly detained Bo Guagua in his apartment once.) Consequently, Gu viewed Heywood as a threat that needed to be neutralised. In choosing between framing Heywood for drug trafficking and poisoning him to death, Gu eventually preferred the latter for its simplicity. Throughout this process, Wang was actively assisting Gu and brainstorming ideas to get rid of Heywood. (Wang even suggested killing Heywood in a shootout and planting drugs on him, but this idea was eventually rejected as it would have caused a massive international scandal and risked damaging Chongqing’s reputation.)

However, Wang’s assistance eventually turned into blackmail. Around the same time, Wang feared that his career was coming to an end because his political opponents were zeroing in on him; many of his old friends in Tieling were investigated by the Central Disciplinary Inspection Commission and prosecuted. Wang feared that he would be next. When Wang realised that Bo remained unconcerned, he took things into his own hands. After Gu double-crossed Wang and tried to destroy evidence of Heywood’s murder behind his back, Wang reached out to Bo directly and informed him of Gu’s role in Heywood’s murder. However, this did not end well: when Gu falsely denied her role, Bo slapped Wang for his ungratefulness and betraying him.

This slap was the turning point that “shattered the last shreds of [Wang’s] illusions about dignity,” according to a police officer in Chongqing. Realising that he was “merely Bo Xilai’s hound dog,” Wang reopened the investigation into Heywood’s murder. Unfortunately, Wang was soon fired by Bo thereafter. Although Wang and Gu had a brief reconciliation — during which he “allegedly slapped his own face in repentance” — Bo still sought to “eliminate” him, prompting Wang to find new exit options.

Drawing on his talent for self-reinvention, Wang cosplayed twice — once as an old woman, and the other as an old man — and started embassy shopping. Unfortunately, his undercover trip to the Guangzhou British Embassy as an old woman was unsuccessful; visa officials ignored him when he probed the possibility of political asylum. His second expedition became an international scandal, except this time Wang cosplayed as an old man in the American embassy in Chengdu. Indeed, Wang’s strategy of causing massive political damage at his own expense 杀敌一千自损八百 ensured that Bo could not easily kill him, albeit at the cost of the party’s reputation.

There is a conspiracy theory that Wang’s brazenness in entering the US consulate was a result of working with the anti-Bo faction in Beijing, but this cannot be fully proven. Either way, it was a win-win situation for both parties: Bo got taken down, and Wang saved his skin.

Act 4: Schadenfreude and Old Debts

We are still in a historical period drama. The genre has not shifted, except that most of the drama now unfolds in the imperial court, where backstabbing and political intrigue are the norm. Occasionally, petty disputes arise and old debts are settled.

Initially, many of Bo’s political opponents delighted in the convenient opportunity to get rid of him. After all, his tremendous anti-corruption campaign implicated many in Beijing. It was rumoured that even former Premier Wen Jiabao secretly ordered “the deputy minister of state security to dig up dirt on Bo” in 2009 because he was against the latter’s anti-corruption crusade. Bo’s association with Heywood’s murder, alongside the international ruckus it caused, was thus a perfect opportunity to drag all the skeletons out of the closet. The family’s routine money laundering, close relationship with Heywood (who was a suspected British spy), chummy relationships with billionaires such as Xu Ming, the murder allegations, and other accusations of corruption became prime fodder to eliminate Bo from the party for good.

It was also a time to settle petty debts. Remember the time when Jiang Zemin visited Dalian and was shocked by the huábiǎo that rivalled Beijing’s? During that visit, Bo covered the city with life-size posters of Jiang, only to tear them down immediately after Jiang left. This apparently upset Jiang, who began to view Bo as a “mere sycophant,” “deceptive,” and overly politically ambitious. Unfortunately, for Bo, it was Jiang, his former mentor, who denounced him as morally unscrupulous and deserving of punishment. (We can only guess how many more petty incidents like these played a part in Bo’s fall from grace.)

Nonetheless, the attack against Bo became too much of a good thing as it brought increased scrutiny to other party members. On October 25th, 2012, the very same day Bo lost his position as a delegate to the National People’s Congress, a New York Times article divulged that Wen Jiabao’s 温家宝 family had a startling estimated net worth of $2.7 billion. Correspondent David Barboza reported that the wealth was “hidden behind layers of partnership and investment vehicles involving friends, work colleagues, and business partners.” Bloomberg also published an article on the sprawling elite fortunes of the descendants of former revolutionaries shortly after.

To avoid disrupting the leadership transition by kicking up more dirt, punishment was swiftly meted out. Gu was given a suspended death sentence on August 9th, 2012, while Bo was issued a life sentence the year after. Bo Guagua escaped unscathed and now resides in Canada, where he spends time writing long eulogies about his dead dog. He married a Taiwanese hospital heiress in 2024.

Conclusion: C is for Camp

CCP politics are inherently campy because of their strong affinity for theatrical excess. Campy politics are only a natural outcome when so much weight is placed on slogans, performativity, and backroom gestures. Add in the fact that many party members have feuds that trace back to the Cultural Revolution, and the opportunities for camp and petty drama are endless. While the dust is settled for now, nothing stays buried for long. Maybe in the next few decades, we’ll see a political comeback by Bo’s faction.

But for now, we wait.

President Trump announced that he will permit Nvidia’s H200 chips to be sold to China on Monday, December 8th. Beijing’s official response to this is extremely understated. This is the entirety of Spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s response to a question from Bloomberg on the H200 sale at the regular foreign ministry press conference on December 9th:

We have noticed the reports. China always advocates that China and the United States achieve mutual benefit through cooperation.

Since then, however, a range of commentary and opinions have come out of Chinese media, reflecting varied opinions. Some are excited, while others are deeply wary; most lie somewhere in between. We’ve selected four commentaries from the Chinese media landscape to excerpt, translate, and feature, as a way to encapsulate the debate happening inside China regarding GPU reliance. They include…

• How cloud providers helped Chinese AI labs access top-tier compute, even while restrictions were in place;

• Why transitioning from Hopper to Blackwell is labor-intensive, and how this shapes Chinese compute demand;

• How inference differs from training, and where Chinese chipmakers might shine in the market;

• And Taiwanese chip makers having a brief panic attack amid the crossfire.

Translations of the original Chinese were done by ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking, then verified manually by the ChinaTalk team for accuracy and fluency. Hyperlinks were added by Irene where context is useful.

Secrets of the Cloud

This first analysis is by Xinzhi Observatory 心智观察所, a media brand covering high-tech that’s owned by Shanghai-based news site Guancha 观察网. Guancha is on the nationalistic end of the Chinese media spectrum, with a penchant for virality. Xinzhi Observatory’s reporting on tech has a more nuanced style, but its assertions should still be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, the piece is a useful read because it reflects popular mainstream attitudes towards the H200s deal: that it is a temporary compromise that benefits Chinese development in the short run, but does not undercut China’s progress in indigenizing the chip supply chain. Its insights into how Chinese labs have managed to access advanced compute via cloud service providers is also revealing.

In Nvidia’s AI product lineup, the Hopper series (including the H100 and H200) represents the previous-generation “ace,” focused on data-center-class AI acceleration and already widely used in supercomputers and AI training clusters around the world. Although the H200 is not based on the latest Blackwell architecture (B100/B200, released in 2024 and more focused on multimodal AI and energy efficiency), its memory advantage makes it a “transitional trump card.” While it far exceeds the performance threshold of domestic Chinese chips, it does not reach the most sensitive cutting-edge technologies that the United States is trying to protect. It was precisely on the basis of the H200’s “moderate firepower” that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang persuaded Trump.

But for China, the introduction of this chip fills the performance gap between the H20 (the specially downgraded version for China) and Blackwell. We cannot look only at the talking points Jensen Huang used in his lobbying: the H200 is, after all, the pinnacle of Nvidia’s Hopper architecture. According to estimates by Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), the H200’s total processing performance (TPP) is nearly ten times the previous export-control ceiling for sales to China. When training and serving large models with more than 175 billion parameters, the H200’s performance is more than six times that of the H20. It is a “previous-generation flagship,” not a “downgraded product.”

Over the past two years, 99% of Chinese AI companies have only been able to use the neutered H20 or domestic chips. Through CSP channels, however, frontier model makers have already been training at scale on clusters of original, advanced chips. Therefore, when Trump suddenly opened the door to the legal sale of the H200, the market reaction was not particularly dramatic, because China’s top players have been using the highest-end compute available via CSP for quite a while already.

CSP is currently an important business model in China’s AI chip ecosystem; it refers to AI chips sold specifically for Cloud Service Providers. Put simply, Nvidia (and to some extent AMD and Intel) sell their top-of-the-line, uncut AI chips exclusively to a handful of leading Chinese cloud providers through special channels, and these cloud providers then offer the compute power to domestic AI companies and research institutes in a “cloud rental” model. What the United States has banned is “direct sales to Chinese enterprises.” Under the CSP model, however, ownership of the chips resides with the cloud providers, so technically it does not violate the ban.

Former TSMC engineer and current Ronghe Semiconductor CEO Wu Zihao told Xinzhi Observatory: “Based on the current performance of various domestic AI chip manufacturers, none of them have yet broken through shipments of 100,000 cards, with the exception of Ascend. Ascend’s shipments are between 500,000 and 1 million cards, but they rely heavily on the ‘IT indigenization’ (xinchuang) market, and CSP purchases of Ascend are not large. In other words, shipments of domestic chips basically depend on xinchuang, with CSP accounting for a very small share. Nvidia’s H200 mainly targets the CSP market; Nvidia cannot enter the xinchuang market. The only point of overlap between the two is in CSP, and judging from the fact that each domestic GPU vendor has shipped only tens of thousands of cards, not a single Chinese CSP treats domestic chips as its mainstay.”

Wu Zihao believes: “Precisely because the base is low, even if the H200 comes in, domestic GPUs still have considerable room for growth. For example, Cambricon shipped 70,000–80,000 GPUs this year. Next year they are expected to reach 150,000 cards, nearly 100% growth, but a base of 150,000 is still very low, and for domestic CSPs’ total demand of at least 4 million cards, the share is not high. In the short term, this may not affect domestic cards, but Nvidia resuming sales of relatively high-performance high-end GPUs to China is not a good thing for Chinese AI chips in the long run; the dependence on the Nvidia ecosystem may prove impossible to reverse.”

Views like Wu Zihao’s—that Nvidia’s renewed sales are not a good thing for Chinese AI chips in the long term—are somewhat representative. But we need to look at the issue more comprehensively: potential gains always come hand in hand with risks. For AI startups like DeepSeek, being able to rapidly deploy H200 clusters can boost model-training efficiency and help overcome compute bottlenecks. The H200’s 141 GB of memory can easily handle RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) and LoRA fine-tuning for models with more than 175 billion parameters. China has the world’s largest pool of AI researchers, and using more advanced technology allows them to translate research into commercial value more quickly.

After Trump announced that the H200 could be “legally sold directly,” the CSP model will not disappear in the short term; on the contrary, it might be upgraded. Previously, CSP arrangements existed with the United States turning a blind eye. Now that direct sales of the H200 have been legalized, the CSP channel may be further extended to more advanced lines like Blackwell, continuing to serve as a “valve” and “observation window” for the United States to monitor China’s AI development.

In the short term, China can temporarily rely on the H200 to train models, but in the long term it must feed back into domestic chip firms to accelerate their iteration. Chinese companies can use more advanced compute to “nurture” models and “accumulate” data, while at the same time feeding back into the domestic chip ecosystem. If China can substitute a narrative of diversified sourcing for a narrative of “decoupling” from the United States, then a “bad thing” can also be turned into a “good thing.”

This is what it truly means to “sustain war through war.” As a former Council on Foreign Relations official lamented in an interview with the FT, “Selling large numbers of H200s to China will give rocket fuel to the Chinese AI industry,” giving them enough compute to dramatically narrow the gap within two years. [Irene note: The expert quoted here is Chris Mcguire who joined ChinaTalk as a podcast guest to talk about Huawei in October!]

…

As things stand, Trump, for the sake of corporate interests and fiscal revenue, has had to compromise with China—and in doing so has made a crucial choice between the two camps. In terms of performance, the H200 is “the most dangerous yet also the safest compromise product” for the United States, while for China it is “just enough to be usable without forcing a rupture.”

Hopper vs. Blackwell, and what China actually wants

In this piece, Tencent Technology 腾讯科技 writer Su Yang 苏扬 explores why more advanced isn’t always better. Even though Blackwell chips are a generation ahead of Hoppers (including the H200), Su argues that Nvidia’s Chinese customers currently rely heavily on the Hopper architecture. Even in a world where Nvidia gains permission to sell Blackwells to China, it’s possible that demand for Hopper chips will remain much higher for quite a while still.

In November 2023, Nvidia officially launched the H200. Shipments to global customers and cloud service providers began in the second quarter of 2024, with mass production starting in the latter part of that quarter and large-scale deliveries rolling out after the third quarter. A single GPU sells for around $30,000–$40,000, and an 8-GPU server comes in at roughly $300,000.

The chip uses TSMC’s advanced 4N process, with a GH100 GPU at its core, integrating 80 billion transistors and a thermal design power (TDP) of 700W. It is also equipped with NVLink 4 interconnect technology, offering 18 links and 900GB/s of interconnect bandwidth. The GPU paired with HBM3e has 141GB of memory, with memory bandwidth as high as 4.8TB/s.

In 2024, the H200 was an unequivocally cutting-edge product, with FP16 performance reaching 1,979 teraFLOPS, compared to just 148 teraFLOPS for the H20 custom-made for the Chinese market. Its FP8 performance is an even more impressive 3,958 teraFLOPS, while the H20 has only 296 teraFLOPS. The H200’s interconnect bandwidth is also double that of the H20, reaching 900GB/s.

But by the end of 2025, products such as the B200 based on the Blackwell architecture had come online and become the new industry standard at the top end. The H200 was pushed into second place, turning into a product whose performance is “relatively behind the curve.”

“As expected,” an industry analyst said when talking about the lifting of export controls on the H200. “Letting Hopper chips out, but not Blackwell, still allows them to tell their domestic audience, ‘we’re still a generation and a half ahead,’ while Chinese customers can still buy what they want.”

Overall, Trump’s announcement on social media that he would allow H200 exports has basically dispelled most concerns. At its core, it just means that the H200 no longer represents truly cutting-edge computing power.

…

Previously, Jensen Huang had repeatedly stated in various settings that “our market share in mainland China is zero.” The approval of H200 exports will bring new opportunities for Nvidia, especially because its performance is far ahead of the downgraded H20, making it much more attractive to customers.

“Chinese customers’ models are all built to run on Hopper-architecture GPUs,” the aforementioned industry analyst emphasized.

In his view, at this stage Hopper has even more pull than the Blackwell architecture: “No one has adapted their models to the B-series yet. Otherwise you’d have to redo all the operators, the toolchain, and the underlying software from scratch—that’s an even bigger engineering effort.”

Put simply, for model developers, migrating from the Hopper architecture to any new architecture requires redeveloping computation modules, building dedicated tooling pipelines, and restructuring the low-level integration code—all of which demand large amounts of manpower, engineering work, and time.

From Nvidia’s standpoint, the profit margin on H200 sales is also much better than for the H20. The H20 is derived from a cut-down H100, which raises manufacturing costs, whereas the H200 does not need to be “neutered” in any way. As an older product, its average gross margin is expected to approach—or even exceed—80%.

Securitization Will Not Be Undone

This commentary was published by DeepTech 深科技, the China-specific media brand of MIT Technology Review. The writer is very bullish on economies of scale being favorable for Chinese domestic chipmakers. Most importantly, the piece argues that the impacts of the last two years of American export controls are lasting. China’s technology industry has internalized that it cannot rely on American giants for compute in the long run, and the state will not roll back extensive effects to support indigenization.

The back-and-forth swings of the past two years have already made Chinese companies acutely aware of how important supply chain security is. No one can guarantee that what is allowed today won’t be revoked tomorrow with a single tweet.

Morgan Stanley estimated that China’s AI chip self-sufficiency rate was 34% in 2024 and is expected to reach 82% by 2027. TrendForce data indicate that in China’s AI server market in 2025, domestic chips are likely to account for as much as 40%.

Mizuho Securities forecasts that shipments of Huawei’s Ascend 910 series will exceed 700,000 units this year. Huawei’s own roadmap already extends to 2028, with the Ascend 950, 960, and 970 lined up in sequence, and in-house HBM also on the agenda. Admittedly, domestic chips still have clear shortcomings in areas such as ecosystem maturity, development toolchains, and support for high-end training scenarios. But the industry has already hit its stride: large-scale training and the migration of large models onto domestic platforms are accelerating. The further the market moves forward, the more likely it is that the ecosystem will be backfilled and completed in turn. As a result, this path toward autonomy and control will not be brought to a halt just because a few foreign chips have been cleared for sale.

…

For Nvidia, returning to the Chinese market means a revenue opportunity worth several billion dollars; for the U.S. government, a 25% cut of sales is a sizable source of fiscal income; and for the Chinese market, the H200 provides a channel for obtaining advanced computing power in the short term.

But in the long run, this may be just a minor episode in the larger tech contest between China and the United States. China’s AI industry has already embarked on a path of autonomy and control, and that path will not be reversed by the approval of a few chip models.

On the battlefield of chips, genuine security can only come from one’s own capabilities, not from the grace of a rival. The green light for the H200 is merely the starting point for a new round of competition.

Inference vs. Training

This last take is a commentary from the editorial staff at the Wu Xiaobo Channel 吴晓波频道. Wu Xiaobo is a prominent finance and economics writer in China, having worked for Xinhua, Hangzhou Daily, and the Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post. Wu Xiaobo Channel is his personal media venture.

The piece is most notable for its discussion of how China’s domestic chip supply is reshaping the inference landscape, providing needed granularity into where H200s fall within the market for compute demand. It echoes many points made by previous commentators about the long shadow of securitization as well, arguing that China will continue to aggressively pursue domesticization regardless of American policy.

Right now, China’s large models and domestic chips have already become deeply intertwined. During the “blockade” phase, the two grew side by side, with their level of mutual adaptation steadily improving.

This relationship has become even closer since DeepSeek burst onto the scene.

If, in the past, training on Nvidia chips was essentially a contest of raw compute, DeepSeek has changed the structure of compute demand: for some smaller companies, compute has shifted from training to inference.

And because inference has lower compute requirements, it has created real room for mid- and lower-end domestic AI chips to shine.

In terms of ecosystem compatibility, it’s difficult during the training phase to build a single resource pool mixing Nvidia and domestic chips, but inference workloads can run on domestic chips.

Data show that in 2024, 57.6% of accelerator cards in Chinese data centers were used for inference, surpassing the 33% used for training. Platforms like Tencent and Baidu integrating DeepSeek have also greatly boosted the growth of inference-oriented chips.

Industrial integration has also brought a shift in market preferences: as China’s large-model and domestic chip industries grow more deeply intertwined, more and more major tech firms and state-owned enterprises are leaning toward buying domestic chips. For example, ByteDance accounts for more than 50% of Cambricon’s total orders; similarly, in 2024, 42% of Moore Threads’ revenue came from government-led intelligent computing center projects, and Huawei’s Ascend chips captured 60% of the orders in such computing centers.

Although these domestic AI chips still lag behind Nvidia’s latest high-end products in absolute top-tier performance, they are sufficient to meet the needs of most inference scenarios. This also means that even if the H200 enters the Chinese market, it will be difficult for it to rapidly achieve “reverse substitution,” and the scale at which it can displace domestic chips will be limited.

Of course, the core advantage of domestic chips at this stage lies precisely in the word “domestic.” These “leading lights of domestic manufacturing” come with no backdoors, are secure and controllable, and leave the power of discourse firmly in Chinese hands—without any need to worry about supplies suddenly being cut off one day.

…

Although the narrative of “domestic substitution” is attractive, once news broke that the U.S. government would allow H200 exports, share prices of domestic chipmakers such as Cambricon and Hygon saw a clear pullback—the challenge is self-evident.

Overall, compared with domestic chips, Nvidia’s products still have advantages in raw compute, ecosystem maturity, and cluster scale—especially the CUDA ecosystem, whose level of development represents a chasm that domestic chips find hard to cross. The migration cost within the CUDA ecosystem is almost zero, whereas domestic chip ecosystems still need another two to three years to catch up.

From the product standpoint itself, the H200’s advantages are also very prominent: not only does its performance far exceed that of the H20, but more importantly, it is highly compatible with existing systems—most of China’s current AI models are already adapted to the Hopper architecture, so there is no need to rebuild operators, toolchains, or underlying software; it can be put to work directly. By contrast, moving straight to the most advanced Blackwell architecture could actually lead to acclimatization problems.

At the same time, from a market and capacity perspective, the current supply of domestic chips is still insufficient to meet the surging demand in the Chinese market. For example, SMIC’s 7 nm chips reportedly have a yield rate of only 20%, which further exacerbates this supply–demand imbalance. Nvidia’s chips, by contrast, are manufactured by TSMC, with a yield rate reaching 60%, providing much stronger assurance on production capacity.

The most direct impact may come from the release of pent-up demand: there were reports that in early 2025, several major companies placed orders worth 16 billion yuan with Nvidia to purchase H20 chips, but these ultimately could not be fulfilled. With the H200 now cleared for export, that demand may be converted into new orders and released in concentrated form in 2026.

But in any case, Nvidia has long since missed the best window to enter the Chinese market—especially China’s AI sector. This approval has come too late.

China is no longer the market that “can’t live without Nvidia.” It’s like a couple separated for a long time who have each grown on their own before meeting again: even if they get back together, it’s hard to recapture the original passion and dependence. Put more plainly, it’s now a relationship where “if it works, we can make it work; if it doesn’t, we can just walk away.”

The Taiwan Situation

Regarding how the US government’s 25% cut will be collected, per Reuters:

A White House official said that the 25% fee would be collected as an import tax from Taiwan, where the chips are made, to the United States, where the chips will undergo a security review by U.S. officials before being exported to China.

This vague description inspired some sudden panic among manufacturers in Taiwan, who worried that they would have to pay an additional fee to the US. Tzu-Hsien Tung 童子賢, chairman of Taiwanese electronics giant Pegatron and cofounder of Asus, told Taiwan’s Economic Daily News that this is most likely a confused misinterpretation: “If Taiwanese firms are paying anything at all, it’s only in a pass-through capacity—collecting and remitting on behalf of someone else, since contract manufacturers aren’t the owners of the product. … My instinct is it’s just pass-through payments; they’re not going to count that as ‘Taiwan paying.’”

The confusion is now mostly cleared up, but a lack of effective communication to Taiwan is probably not a positive indicator for US-Taiwan relations.

ChinaTalk is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

A year for the history books for the Chinese AI beat. We began the year astonished by DeepSeek’s frontier model, and are ending in December with Chinese open models like Qwen powering Silicon Valley’s startup gold rush.

It’s a good time to stop and reflect on Chinese AI milestones throughout 2025. What really mattered, and what turned out to be nothingburgers?

This piece recaps:

• The biggest model drops of the year

• China’s evolving AGI discussion among Alibaba leadership and the Politburo

• The biggest swings in the US-China chip war

• Beijing’s answer to America’s AI Action plan and the MFA’s

• Robots

Models

The DeepSeek Moment

Liang Wenfeng lit the fire

DeepSeek-R1 came out on January 20, thwarting everyone’s Chinese New Year plans. The cost-efficient LLM, which uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture, caused many in Silicon Valley to re-evaluate their bets on scaling — and on unfettered American dominance in frontier models. DeepSeek is powered by domestically trained Chinese engineering talent, an apparent belief in AGI, and no-strings-attached hedge fund money (it is owned by High-Flyer 幻方量化, a Hangzhou-based quantitative trading firm). There were initial concerns that such a recipe could not be replicated by more capital-constrained Chinese tech startups, but Kimi proved that wrong with K2 in July; Z.ai, Qwen, and MiniMax followed.

We translated Chinese tech media 36Kr’s interview with DeepSeek CEO Liang Wenfeng back in November 2024, and spent much of January 2025 on the DeepSeek beat (see Jordan’s conversations on DeepSeek with Miles Brundage here and with Kevin Xu of Interconnected here). Over at the newsletter, we covered how China reacted to DeepSeek’s rise, its secret sauce, and concerns around open-source as a strategy.

DeepSeek continues to be a big deal. For one, it paved the way for an open-source race dominated by Chinese models. Nearly every notable model released by Chinese companies in 2025 has been open source. In public blog posts, social media discussions, and private conversations, Chinese engineers and tech executives repeatedly attribute their open-source orientation to the example set by DeepSeek.

On the technical end, despite some remaining mystery surrounding the exact cost of training R1, DeepSeek’s viability was a shot in the arm for Chinese labs working under compute constraints. Going into 2026, with restrictions on H200s loosened and reporting that DeepSeek is still training on smuggled Nvidia, easier access to TSMC-fabbed Nvidia chips may be just what DeepSeek needs to get their mojo back.

Manus

Big deal, but not because of the product

On March 6, an unknown Chinese startup named Butterfly Effect 蝴蝶效应 launched Manus, the world’s first general-purpose AI agent. Revisiting the “Introducing Manus” video that went viral nine months ago is a reminder of how quickly technology has developed: the capabilities Manus demonstrated — reviewing a folder of résumé PDFs, researching stocks, and comparing real estate options — are now so common that we barely think of them as new or even particularly agentic. But back then, some thought Manus was a second “China Shock” of sorts after DeepSeek. Jordan discussed Manus on the podcast with (Strange Loop Canon), Swyx from , and (Mercatus, Hyperdimensional) on the podcast here.

Soon after, Manus didn’t want to be Chinese anymore. In July, the company scrubbed its internet presence inside China, relocated to Singapore, and laid off most of its staff in Beijing and Wuhan. An April funding round led by the American venture capital firm Benchmark had been scrutinized by the US Treasury Department over restrictions on investments into Chinese AI development. Manus may have decided that its Chinese base is a worthy sacrifice if it means access to American capital and the global market.

Since then, its market strategy has been anything but understated: from exclusive parties in San Francisco to conference keynotes in Singapore, Manus is trying to reinvent itself as a global force spearheading agents. Whether or not this rebrand is successful remains to be seen; in the meantime, it is no longer the only agent in the game, as major AI companies like OpenAI and ByteDance launched agent products of their own.

Looking back, Manus was the start of a wave of Chinese AI companies aggressively pursuing international expansion in the second half of this year. With DeepSeek providing that the world was interested in open-source Chinese models, other companies became eager for a slice of the lucrative global market. Whether or not their Chinese roots limit their growth potential will be up to regulators in 2026 and beyond.

The Open Source Race

The defining paradigm

With DeepSeek shooting the first shot, this year saw a significant number of Chinese companies contributing excellent models to the open source race. In the process of promoting their models, Chinese labs have also become much less secretive.

We covered Kimi K2, a “thinking” model whose architecture is inspired by DeepSeek, in July, with much of the reportage based on blogs and comments Kimi engineers shared online. Since then, we were also able to interview Li Zixuan, director of product at Z.ai (formerly Zhipu), which makes the popular GLM models. 2026 will almost certainly see more Chinese AI companies leverage open source as a mean of expanding influence.

China and AGI

Does China believe in AGI, and is it working to pursue it? It’s a question hotly debated by observers of China’s tech scene, and this year we were fortunate to be able to feature some excellent writing that probes at this topic.

In April, an anonymous contributor staged a Platonic debate between a believe and a skeptic, laying out arguments for and against the question of Chinese AGI belief.

In May, another anonymous writer covered the Politburo “study session” on AI. We learn from the invited guest list that “Xi’s hand-chosen experts on AI seem more like the Yoshua Bengios and Geoffrey Hintons of the Chinese AI world than the Yann LeCuns”:

Alibaba, whose family of Qwen models gained particular prominence in the latter half of this year, held its annual Yunqi Conference in September, and CEO Eddie Wu delivered a landmark speech sketching out his vision for transformative AI. Guest contributor Afra Wang argues that prophetic styles signal a “vibe shift” in Chinese tech, as the industry begins to see itself as pivotal for the nation’s destiny.

The Chip War

Just make up your mind already!

For most of the year, we waited with baited breath for the Trump administration to decide whether to export advanced AI chips to China — and for Beijing to make up its mind on whether it wants them after all. All this drama led to five emergency pods! A quick timeline to refresh our memory:

• Jan: Biden’s AI diffusion rule (emergency pod)

• April: BIS closed loopholes in Biden-era chip and manufacturing equipment export controls, further restricting Chinese access;

• May: Commerce Department kills the Biden Administration’s Diffusion Rule via Q&A but weirdly still hasn’t fully changed the reg…

• July: America’s AI Action Plan called for stricter enforcement of export controls and exploration of location verification mechanisms (our coverage)

• The Summer of Jensen (reported by ChinaTalk here and discussed with Lennart Haim and Chris Miller here):

  • July 15: Jensen Huang met Trump and secured permission to resume sales of H20s to China;

  • July 30: The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) summoned Nvidia’s representatives over risks of Nvidia being able to control H20s remotely, accusing them of having a “kill switch”;

  • August 11: The Trump administration reached a deal with AMD and Nvidia to resume exports of H20s and MI308s to China, with the US government receiving 15% of the resulting revenue;

  • August 12: The CAC summoned top Chinese tech firms to pressure them to reduce H20s orders and supplant with domestic alternatives;

  • August 13: Reuters reported that US officials have been secretly putting tracking devices into some high-end chips in order to track diversion to China;

  • August 21: Reports emerge that Nvidia has asked some suppliers to halt production of H20s.

• September: BIS unveiled an Affiliates Rule, which would have hit many more Chinese companies with restrictions on chip access, including their ability to purchase legacy chips;

• October: the Trump-Xi Summit produced a deal, with China suspending its new, dramatic rare earths export restrictions for one year in exchange for a temporary suspension of the Affiliates Rule (emergency pod)

• November: The GAIN AI Act was introduced in the Senate, with the White House apparently lobbying against it;

• December: Trump announced that he will permit Nvidia to sell H200s to China (emergency pod).

Huawei is Beijing’s champion for creating an alternative ecosystem to Nvidia’s. Guest contributor Mary Clare McMahon explored how Huawei is working to bypass the CUDA moat in May, and in June Jordan sat down with veteran journalist Eva Dou to discuss her new book, The House of Huawei. In October, Jordan also interviewed Chris McGuire, former Deputy Senior Director for Technology and National Security at the NSC, about where Huawei’s capabilities might be going.

The rise of reasoning models and inference training has also brought attention towards high-bandwidth memory (HBM), where China still currently relies on the Big Three: the US’s Micron, and South Korea’s SK Hynix and Samsung. Contributors Ray Wang and Aqib Zakaria covered China’s pursuit of indigenous HBM this year, exploring CXMT’s capabilities in the face of lithography export controls.

Robots

Too soon to tell…

A wave of attention gathered around robotics and embodied AI in China this year. The Government Work Report this year explicitly mentioned embodied AI for the first time, placing it alongside longstanding tech aspirations like quantum and 6G. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) specifically named humanoid robots in its list of work priorities for 2025. And throughout the second half of 2025, the Chinese Institute of Electronics has been working on standards for the humanoid robots industry, responding to an apparently “urgent” need for standardization in an increasingly competitive field.

Inside China, buoyed by media attention and Unitree’s Spring Festival Gala appearance in January, competition in humanoid robots turned white-hot this year. At least ten companies released humanoid robot models. Some compete by offering increasingly low per-unit prices, while others are starting to pursue specialization in terms of capabilities.

Embodied AI sits at the intersection of China’s longstanding manufacturing advantage and recent advances in machine learning research like vision-language models (VLMs). Jordan sat down with Ryan Julian of Google DeepMind to discuss some of these advances in robotics research this September. Some industry observers in China are worried that humanoids, and embodied AI in general, will turn out to be a bubble, given the sudden rush of investment and a lack of obvious business models. In the meantime, American policymakers are beginning to fret about Chinese robotics firms’ impressive market shares and Western academia’s reliance on affordable Chinese hardware. It’s too early to tell if 2025 was the start of something seismic in robotics.

Policy

AI+ Plan

Big deal; results unknown

On August 28, the State Council released its “Opinion on In-Depth Implementation of the ‘Artificial Intelligence+’ Initiative” (关于深入实施“人工智能+”行动的意见, hereafter abbreviated to “AI+ Plan”). The Plan is a landmark document addressing the integration of AI into China’s economy and society and pushes for thorough AI diffusion across sectors, ministries, and regions. It does not address geopolitical competition much, but clearly portrays AI integration as a strategic priority for the country.

We dove deeply into the AI+ Plan after it was released. Its extraordinarily comprehensive scope, intense sense of urgency, and framing of open-source models as geostrategic assets were remarkable then and remain relevant now. Going into next year, however, knock-on effects will reach Beijing’s doorsteps. How far is “emotional consumption,” greenlit as an application by the AI+ Plan, allowed to go, as AI companions become more alluring and mental health issues potentially proliferate? Will the state be able to keep frustrations around unemployment at bay amid deflation? If AI capabilities are “jagged,” to quote Helen Toner, will Beijing need to adjust expectations for how different industries’ productivities will change with AI?

The Global AI Governance Action Plan

Mid-sized deal with MFA characteristics

A follow-up from the 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative, the Global AI Governance Action Plan was released on July 26 at the World AI Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. China has long sought to create an overarching narrative for international AI governance. The Global AI Governance Action Plan should be understood as part of its campaign to win hearts and minds around the globe, particularly among unaligned nations in the developing world seeking technology partners.

In hindsight, there is a link between the third item of the Global AI Governance Action Plan, which discusses integration of AI into nearly every industry internationally, and the “AI+” plan for domestic AI diffusion that was released later in the year (to be discussed next). Sector-agnostic, large-scale adoption is a conceptualization of AI that is articulated consistently in Chinese tech policy.

Beyond this, however, most of the other items in the Global AI Governance Action Plan are yet to be realized. Without naming the US, the Plan stresses “global solidarity” and warns against fragmentation. China seeks an active role in international AI governance, whether in standards, environmental management, or data sharing. Diplomatic currents move slowly, and we will likely see more AI policy outreach from Beijing towards developing countries in the coming months and years.

Labelling Requirements, and How to Evade Them

Nothingburger, sadly

Just one day after Manus on March 7, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released a draft of its “Measures for Labeling of AI-Generated Synthetic Content” (人工智能生成合成内容标识办法), which later came into force in September. The Measures require internet service providers to explicitly label AI-generated content on users’ feeds and add implicit labels to the metadata of synthetic content files. Platforms, in theory, should make it known to users whenever the latter interact with potentially AI-generated content, as well as make sure that creators proactively label their uploaded content as AI-generated. This makes China one of the first jurisdictions, and certainly the largest, to implement labelling or watermarking rules for AI-generated internet content.

The CAC is ostensibly well-placed to roll out AI content labelling regulations, given its unparalleled regulatory reach and China’s competitive position in AI technology. However, after a rush of actions by companies to comply in September, momentum has fallen by the wayside. ChinaTalk will have more coverage on this soon, but in a nutshell, the landscape for AI content labelling enforcement is uneven at best. (Anecdotally, I see unlabelled, AI-generated content on Xiaohongshu and WeChat almost every day. Especially in the case of AI-generated text, labelling is next to nonexistent.)

AI-assisted and -generated content is now so much more pervasive online than nine months ago, whether on global platforms or on the Chinese internet. It’s time to ask: what was the point of labelling as policy? Is it to actually protect users from misinformation and engender trust, or is it just a stopgap measure that lets platforms evade responsibility? What kinds of AI usage merit which kinds of mandated disclosures?

A clearly AI-generated video on Rednote/Xiaohongshu. The user’s self-chosen name is “Mimi Loves AI,” but apart from that there is no other indication that the video is AI-generated.

Here to discuss is of the Silverado Policy Accelerator.

We get into:

• Why this is, in Dmitri’s words, “a disaster”

• There are military balance of power implications for selling chips to China

• Why the rest of the AI ecosystem is against selling chips to China, Why Trump made this call anyway, and why SME export liberalization might be next

• Where the GAIN Act goes from here

Listen now on YouTube or your favorite podcast app.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s first toast the unfortunate U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Nicholas Jon Ganjei. On Monday morning, he proudly issued a press release for his cool-sounding “Operation Gatekeeper,” which intercepted $160 million worth of Nvidia H100s and H200s.

That afternoon, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would allow Nvidia to ship its H200 products to approved customers in China. Dmitri, please make sense of this for me.

Dmitri Alperovitch: There’s no way to sugarcoat this — it’s a disaster. This isn’t only about the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney General’s statement highlighted how critical AI is to military applications. The President’s own AI action plan discussed how the United States must aggressively adopt AI within its armed forces to maintain its global military preeminence, while ensuring that the use of AI is secure and reliable. This technology is essential to U.S. military dominance and the successes of the U.S. Intelligence community.

You have to give the administration credit — it is doing a lot to ensure all levels of the U.S. government are adopting AI. Why we would enable China to do the same is beyond me. Are we going to sell them aircraft carriers or Virginia-class submarines? Should we let them into AUKUS? This is effectively what we are doing.

It is outrageous that Jensen Huang has been able to pull the wool over the eyes of people in government and on Capitol Hill, convincing them that arming our primary adversary — the one we are unquestionably in a cold war with — is somehow good for America. I understand it’s good for Nvidia’s sales and for him personally, but it is a disaster for our national security.

Jordan Schneider: What I find baffling is the contradiction in Nvidia’s public messaging. Jensen Huang and his company argue that their technology will revolutionize every conceivable industry, all requiring massive amounts of GPU capacity. But when asked directly about the military implications of selling these chips, Huang downplays the risk. He suggests that China’s military will acquire the necessary chips regardless and claims they are too sophisticated to use American technology for sensitive, dual-use applications. It’s ludicrous that this technology is transformative for every field except for the military.

Dmitri Alperovitch: It doesn’t make sense. AI will transform everything. Even in civilian uses, do we want China to win in automotive, energy, and everything else? Because that’s what you’re enabling by selling chips to them. The primary concern is their military and intelligence services, but we are also in an economic competition. I would rather kneecap Chinese competitors to enable our own companies to succeed. Why would you do otherwise?

This is equivalent to selling supercomputers to the Soviet Union in the 1970s. No one even considered doing that. You could make the case that it would support Soviet agriculture and feed starving people, but no one said that because those same computers could be used for nuclear weapons testing and countless other military applications. There was no debate about it — it was understood to be a bad idea.

50 years later, we’re in a cold war. This is unbelievably shortsighted — putting profit above national security. Jensen Huang said if you’re a China hawk, you’re unpatriotic and un-American. I think selling supercomputing capabilities to the Chinese military is as unpatriotic and un-American as it gets.

Jordan Schneider: Jensen, if you’re listening, you’re invited to come on ChinaTalk anytime to make your case.

Dmitri, what’s telling is that the rest of the tech industry is finally pushing back. After months of staying quiet for fear of losing access to Nvidia chips, major players like Microsoft and AWS are supporting measures like the GAIN Act. The benefit of selling chips to China is mostly limited to Nvidia. U.S. hyperscalers and AI labs now face a powerful new competitor for limited chip manufacturing, driving up prices. The upside seems narrow, especially when Nvidia’s strongest argument — that the world, including China, will be locked into CUDA — seems far-fetched.

Dmitri Alperovitch: Nvidia’s argument is knowingly false. The GAIN Act is the ultimate ‘America First’ act. It stipulates that before chips are sold to countries of concern like China, we must ensure that U.S. demand is satisfied. American companies are first in line. How anyone could argue against this is beyond me.

The Act doesn’t say, “we’ll cut China off completely to ensure their military doesn’t get chips” — we’re saying, “let’s make sure American companies have priority.” It’s a no-brainer. I’ve talked to hyperscalers who are supportive of this act, and even other chip companies are saying they agree with the concept. The fight wasn’t about the details — the fight was a push for no restrictions on sales to China, which is unbelievable.

Jensen’s argument that the U.S. wants to make China addicted to the American tech stack is ridiculous. There is no addiction — chips aren’t cocaine. You can see this today with every single hyperscaler — Google, Amazon, Microsoft with its Maia chip, and now Meta with its own custom chips — all saying they are moving off CUDA. Many already are.

The top two frontier models, Claude and Gemini, were reportedly trained on Amazon’s Trainium and Google’s TPUs, respectively. There aren’t enough chips to go around, and for cost and strategic reasons, pretty much every frontier company is now using a multi-chip architecture — CUDA, Trainium, TPUs, and others. There is no addiction. Companies were able to make that switch in months, it’s easy — this is software and APIs. You can give AI one API and tell it to rewrite it in the form of another. It’s a trivial task.

Now we’re selling China H200s. This is probably the start of a broader concession on Blackwell, and then Rubin. Jensen won’t stop at the H200 — he will want to sell everything. The Chinese want to receive the latest and greatest chips, not only the Hopper generation. We’re going to sell them these chips, and they’re going to build competitive models. DeepSeek, Qwen, and Kimi are already good — they’re at most 12 months behind. They will quickly catch up and become leading models.

China will keep investing in Huawei because the Chinese are not stupid. Jensen says that if we don’t sell them chips, they’ll invest in their own, like Huawei’s Ascend chips. They’re doing that anyway. Xi Jinping is going to demand it, which is why you’re seeing China’s response that they will restrict the importation of H200s to ensure there is still domestic demand for Huawei chips.

Huawei’s Ascend chips will eventually catch up, and Chinese companies — supposedly “addicted” to the American AI stack — will switch over in days or weeks. What will we have achieved? We will have relinquished our lead in frontier AI models, and eventually, they’ll have chips that replace Nvidia’s. It is myopic and stupid for Nvidia’s own business model. They are focused on the next quarter and the next year versus a couple of years from now when China dominates both chips and frontier models.

Jordan Schneider: If this goes through, and tens of billions of dollars worth of chips are exported to China, and the future you portend comes true, will there will be a political price to pay? This was a major talking point for Trump on his campaign — “Winning the AI race” and “American AI dominance”. A year or 18 months from now, if China is releasing crazy new AI-powered technologies that were all trained on Nvidia chips, that will be a tricky political dance. Nice calls from Jensen won’t be enough to smooth that over.

Dmitri Alperovitch: We are already there. Almost a year ago, there was a brouhaha over the release of DeepSeek. The surprise was unwarranted: it shouldn’t have shocked anyone paying close attention. But people reacted with, “Oh my God, the Chinese are catching up.” Of course they are. Deepseek was built on H100 chips, which, until recently, were not restricted. There will be another DeepSeek moment, but worse. DeepSeek was good, but it was still behind frontier models. The next models will be better.

Sam Altman is in panic mode over Gemini 3 because its capabilities eclipse his models. This will happen to all American frontier models and to the country more broadly. The Chinese will crush us with cheaper power, tons of researchers, and massive state subsidies. The one thing they were missing — compute — will now flow into China.

Jordan Schneider: The Financial Times reported Chinese companies were training models in Malaysia or Singapore. That’s not ideal and not as efficient as AliCloud’s operations in China. There, they can rapidly deploy numerous H100s while benefiting from straightforward communication, a reliable power grid, and lower energy costs.

Dmitri Alperovitch: We should have been cracking down on H100 access in Malaysia and elsewhere. Chips shipped directly to China will be prioritized for high-side intelligence and military networks. Chinese agencies can’t use public clouds in Malaysia for their classified data. But now they can grab those chips from private companies in China and prioritize them for military purposes, as they do with everything else.

Jordan Schneider: That seems like the most salient reason China would want the chips inside the country. Training models in Malaysia is annoying, but only 10%-annoying. There are also data privacy restrictions, which they can get around if they’re serving domestic consumers in China. What do they want complete control of their chips for? The sensitive stuff that they would never trust a random Singaporean cutout to do for you.

Dmitri Alperovitch: The U.S. government cannot get enough chips. Agencies have told me they are compute-dependent for inference and cannot get enough chips. Now we’re shipping part of that limited supply to China. How does that make sense?

Jordan Schneider: Let’s flip this around.

Dmitri Alperovitch: One more point. The H200 is from the Hopper generation, not the latest Blackwell generation, but it has High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM). We have a current ban on the export of HBM to China. The H200 decision calls HBM protections into question, as the technology is already being exported on Nvidia chips.

We may see a cascading failure of export controls. I am hearing of discussions about relaxing export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment, which would make it easier for Huawei to manufacture Ascend chips in China. I hope that doesn’t happen, but there are people in the administration pushing for it.

Jordan Schneider: A year ago, the administration was being pressured to restrict chip technology to China. First there was the H20 situation, then the Laura Loomer saga and teh “twilight of the China hawks.” Lawmakers Vasant, Greer, and Rubio even intervened right before the Xi Jinping meeting to urge against concessions. Now, only a month later, this policy has been enacted without any clear reciprocal action from China other than continued soybean purchases.

Dmitri Alperovitch: I don’t know.

Jordan Schneider: To be determined. The main thing they’ve done recently is bully Japan. That’s the only big new development. And now we’re deciding to throw this other carrot into the mix. It’s weird.

Dmitri Alperovitch: The crazy thing is that China isn’t even asking for this. It didn’t come up in the Trump-Xi meeting. This is a concession to Jensen Huang, enabling Nvidia to make money at the expense of U.S. national security. I could understand it if this were a trade to get something we desperately want from China, like rare earths or a commitment not to invade Taiwan — though they would never do that. But it’s not. We are getting nothing for it. It is a favor to Jensen, to China, and to the PLA.

Jordan Schneider: It’s not even a big favor to my 401(k) — it only went up by two and a half percent. Come on.

Dmitri Alperovitch: Nvidia is in trouble because its U.S. market is going to shrink. Its primary customers, all the major hyperscalers, are building their own chips and want to move off of Nvidia’s platform. It’s desperately looking for another market, in China and the Middle East. That is why the company is pushing so hard for these export controls to be lifted. Jensen probably sees this is an existential problem.

Jordan Schneider: Dmitri, I appreciate your energy. I am so tired of these guys. I have to give Jensen credit for his stamina in making those calls and fighting through this. He has delivered twice now.

Dmitri Alperovitch: And he killed the GAIN Act.

Jordan Schneider: The man’s on a roll — he’s scored a touchdown.

Dmitri Alperovitch: And by the way, he’s not only going after the China hawks. The entire industry — from the hyperscalers to other chip companies — is on the other side of the ledger. He’s single-handedly beating everyone in this town. It is astonishing.

King Jensen

Jordan Schneider: Last year I asked you why more rich people don’t invest their time and energy to shape political outcomes. The thesis was that if you put the time and work in, you can get results. This is Exhibit A for CEOs trying to push through initiatives that may not have polled well initially. If you put in enough legwork and time on the phones, you can make things happen.

Dmitri Alperovitch: You have to give him kudos — he’s done incredibly well at the influence game here in D.C. He is putting in the time, meeting with anyone. He even said he’ll meet with Elizabeth Warren, one of his chief critics on the Democratic side. He’s calling the President almost daily, it seems. He got this done by badgering the President, repeating, “Get me my chips, get me my chips, get me my chips.” Donald Trump finally said, “Fine, here you go.”

Jordan Schneider: This development suggests the administration dismisses both the national security and the economic arguments for restricting this technology. It ignores the reality that these chips are vital in a strategic military competition.

Economically, it also overlooks the fact that strengthening Chinese competitors will harm American industry for decades. We should be consolidating the technology that drives productivity, not ceding it to a rival.

Dmitri Alperovitch: I don’t agree. The majority of this administration is opposed to this decision and does believe we are in a strategic competition with China. Call it a cold war. I know people in the administration agree. The president was convinced that selling China American AI stack is good for American business, and that Chinese firms will be addicted to it. But it’s a nonsensical argument. Jensen lied, because there is no addiction to the stack — it’s easy to move off of it. Unfortunately, he has been able to carry the day for now.

Jordan Schneider: This isn’t selling the “stack.” Selling the stack would be Nvidia chips run by AWS or Google, running Western models. This is selling the lowest level of the stack. I guess if the semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) relaxations come true, we’ll be selling the two lowest levels.

Dmitri Alperovitch: This is the equivalent of selling Ford cars to China in the hope China will be “addicted” and not prefer any other car. It is stupid on its face.

Jordan Schneider: It’s not even selling the Ford car — it’s selling the axles.

Dmitri Alperovitch: That’s all it is. There are huge problems with this decision. First, this is enabling the Chinese military and intelligence services, which are adversaries we could one day be at war with. The DoD is planning for a fight with China and stressing the need to overmatch its capabilities. Second, it puts Chinese firms on equal footing with American firms. Why would we do that? It hurts American companies and the American economy.

Jensen’s argument against export controls is inconsistent with his own business practices. He claims controls only encourage strategic competitors to innovate. By that logic, he should open-source his proprietary CUDA framework to AMD, because God forbid they develop a superior alternative. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. He is protecting his technology with patents and trade secrets, like any other company. Yet, he insists the U.S. should use a different strategy at a national level. It’s insanity.

Demand for chips in the U.S. already outstrips supply. Diverting this limited resource to a strategic military and economic competitor is a self-defeating act — we are actively surrendering the Cold War. I’m not an “AI doomer” — this technology is profoundly important for economic and military power. That is why there is no valid argument for helping your main rival develop it.

Jordan Schneider: Hey, White House. Hey, Nvidia. If you want to come on ChinaTalk and make those arguments, we could hash it out here.

Maybe we’ll be saved by the Ministry of State Security, who convince themselves that this is a crazy CIA plot to backdoor hack the PLA. It’s a longshot.

An Institute for Progress chart shows the U.S. and its allies currently possess a large compute advantage over China, roughly a 13-to-1 ratio. Selling large volumes of chips to China could drastically change this balance.

The main question is how Huawei’s domestic production compares to Nvidia’s global output from its fabs. If we withhold advanced equipment and AI chips from China, we can confidently expect a continued U.S. advantage. If these sales go through, it’s unclear who will lead in compute power in next 5 to 15 years.

Dmitri Alperovitch: It will be China, because they’re going to subsidize the hell out of this and we won’t.

It’s not over. Capital Hill is upset about this. Don’t count out Congress, the GAIN Act isn’t dead yet. There will be a fight to prioritize chips for American companies and to see what restrictions are possible — maybe export control reviews by Congress. There are bills floating around.

Also, Donald Trump often changes his mind. Others may convince him to revert this decision. The good thing about Donald Trump is that you’re never done. Whatever happens today can be undone tomorrow, and we need to take advantage of that.

Jordan Schneider: That’s the great irony in all of this. Given the political hesitancy on both side of the aisle and the possibility of Trump changing his mind, Alibaba, Tencent, or ByteDance are unlikely to bet their firms’ futures on Nvidia chips. This is going to be a political football, and one Truth Social post won’t end it. The strategy of “addicting Chinese firms” over the long term — setting aside Beijing’s own goal to indigenize chip production— won’t work.

Dmitri Alperovitch: Beyond politics, this strategy fails for basic business reasons.

China won’t get enough chips. You have Jensen acting as king, allocating a scarce supply of Nvidia chips to hyperscalers and now Chinese customers. Since there isn’t enough to go around, that scarcity forces them to rely on other chips.

No one wants to pay the “Nvidia tax” or be completely dependent on a single monopolistic supplier. Everyone wants to diversify, which is why you see them all building their architectures on multi-chip designs. Committing 100% to CUDA, politics aside, makes no commercial sense.

The Magic of AI

Jordan Schneider: Let’s close on some vibe-coding. I can’t be too depressed going into the holidays. Dmitri, I hear you’ve been having some fun with Opus 4.5 recently. What’s it done for you?

Dmitri Alperovitch: It’s magic. Anyone with a bachelor’s degree, not even in a technical field, can be a software engineer within three years, if not sooner. It is so easy to develop applications. I’ve built two mobile apps in the last month and a web app for personal use. Opus 4.5 is magic. I built a mobile app yesterday in 15 minutes, and most of that time was spent on setup, authorizing it on the Apple Store, and configuring my device. The capability is incredible, and it’s improving everyday.

This is the innovation we have to look forward to, and we want to make sure our American companies, our government, and our citizens are the primary beneficiaries. We want American frontier companies to be the best, and then we can restrict these models from actors we don’t want to have access.

I’m on the board of a number of companies, and I’m telling them all to start measuring their engineers on their use of AI in development tasks. Anyone who isn’t using AI should be considered for a performance improvement plan (PIP). This is the next hammer. It’s like when hammers were discovered tens of thousands of years ago — whoever didn’t use them fell behind. This is an unbelievable productivity tool.

One of my companies has a software engineering team developing their products. They’re also pulling people from other departments, like security, to help build the next module in Claude or other models. These teams are creating prototypes, and even production-ready versions. It’s unbelievable how you’re able to raise the productivity of everyone, not just software engineers.

Jordan Schneider: I want to say the same for analysts, think tankers, Hill staffers, and folks in the executive branch. It is a superpower. We were having a debate about whether Huawei can backfill Nvidia and what the ratio of chips would be. It took me 45 minutes to build an entire data visualization with sliders for different assumptions. How much HBM will China get? How tight will the export controls be? How much will they improve using DUV? How far behind will Huawei’s chips be compared to Nvidia’s?

Beyond the fun personal applications, it’s the “bicycle for the mind” aspect that people should experience, especially for thinking through policy problems. If you’re wrestling with a knotty issue that has numbers, contingencies, or second-order effects that are hard to hold in your head, ask Claude to help you visualize it or see the other side of the argument.

The hallucination issue is almost gone. You still need to fact-check the details and trust your gut if something seems off, but the improvement has been dramatic.

Dmitri Alperovitch: It depends on what you’re using it for. At some level, it’s garbage in, garbage out. If you’re training a model on Reddit and asking about something very esoteric, you’re not going to get a good answer.

Jordan Schneider: You are doing yourself a disservice if you haven’t spent time with these models. Try to integrate them into your day job. You should be hanging out on Cursor and Claude, trying to build little tools and apps to make your workflow easier or allow you to do new things.

Dmitri Alperovitch: Building apps was nostalgic for me. It brought back the emotions I felt as a kid in the 1980s when I learned programming. It was an amazing feel coding your first “Hello, World!” program or, in my case, a simple game in QBasic. The magic of seeing it run was a special feeling, and you felt so proud and accomplished.

This took me back. It made me think, “Oh my God, this is magic.” In the ‘80s and ‘90s, you had to have technical expertise and learn a programming language. You still need some technical skills today, particularly when you’re debugging or if you don’t understand how Swift works or how to deploy iOS apps. But all of that is going away.

Jordan Schneider: It’s going away.

Dmitri Alperovitch: The accessibility of this technology changing everything. For years, we thought only nerds could access the magic of programming. Now, everyone can, and that is going to revolutionize everything. The interesting thing about AI is not that it’s going to make tasks easier and faster, but that it’s going to make other things that you would never, ever do before accessible.

The cost of software engineering iwill drop to zero. Everyone will be building dozens of apps — for their grocery list, for managing their kids’ schedules, whatever it may be — because it’s so easy. You can custom build something that would be useful only to you, with no commercial value. Even for coders, we wouldn’t spend our time building those apps it was a lot of effort. Now, that effort is gone.

Jordan Schneider: The activation energy for doing a side project has dropped to zero. What I’m excited to see created, Dmitri, is the “senior policy official simulator.” That’s a classic nerdy ChinaTalk idea.

Dmitri Alperovitch: So nerdy.

Jordan Schneider: But you read all these memoirs from government officials. Jake Sullivan said the one thing you can’t experience beforehand is being in a crisis. You can have a Tim Geithner level — all of a sudden it’s 2009, and it’s not like you’ve lived through a financial crisis before.

Having a visceral experience — a VR Situation Room meeting, a VR flight on the plane with the president trying to convince him not to sell chips to China — getting reps in those high-stakes political, personal, and commercial situations could be transformative. It doesn’t have to be for politics and national security. We haven’t had a nuclear crisis in a long time.

Having the deeper, emergent human capabilities that AI simulations of these events can provide seems like a big upside for human competence when dealing with crises in the future. I’m excited about it. Rockstar Games, if you’re out there, give me a call. We can do some cool stuff together.

Dmitri, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for being a part of ChinaTalk.

Dmitri Alperovitch: Thanks for having me, Jordan.

Mood Music

大家好，本期放学以后信号塔由西班牙的霸王花木兰轮值。现在我正在塞维利亚的民宿沙发里窝着写这篇newsletter。

我又出门游荡了。

先是莫不谷发起了去Alicante吃海鲜过春天的活动，我和莫不谷，还有荷兰朋友小鱼儿以及芬兰的粽子一起到阿利坎特Alicante集合，度过了短暂却精彩纷呈的三天。

由于芬兰飞西班牙机票太贵，粽子来一趟不容易，所以在莫不谷的提议下，结束Alicante行程后，粽子又和我一块背包开启了西班牙南部的游荡之旅，先是去海鲜饭发源地瓦伦西亚Valencia，再飞去美丽的南部城市塞维利亚Seville，接着坐大巴到达热门旅行城市马拉加Malaga，最后粽子从这里结束游荡，飞回芬兰。

这一路的行程，粽子像是海绵一样遇水膨胀，疯狂储蓄西班牙的阳光，这样在芬兰夜长日少的时间里慢慢使用，明年四五月份春天也就没有那么遥远了。今天粽子还在塞维利亚的街上边走边唱，我的快乐，不会来了~因为一想到西班牙游荡行将结束，她便心生不舍。不过她也计划以后每年冬天都来一趟西班牙，因为阳光太好了！莫不谷也早早计划了2026年的冬日游荡行程：到西班牙的最南端——科尔多瓦+加地斯+龙达+直布罗陀 （对面就是非洲） 。

而我则是终于有机会来南部游荡，特别是莫不谷曾在四月去过腿部干裂到出血却仍止不住夸赞的塞维利亚Seville。

落地第一天上午，在灿烂到背部发热的阳光下，我背包徒步走到了西班牙广场，这个简直是我全世界游荡以来遇到的最美丽的广场，评为我的世界第一广场也不为过。恰逢广场里舞蹈正在配合热情的音乐演奏，旁边烤板栗的香气和烟雾在人群头上聚集又随风飘去，五彩缤纷的泡泡正在被人吹出，又被好奇的孩子们追逐试图拍散，阳光洒在粉橙色的广场建筑和缤纷美丽像是“青花瓷”又像是“唐三彩”地瓷砖上，广场正中央喷泉正在以蓬勃的状态喷洒水滴，细碎的水雾遇上阳光折出一抹七色彩虹，当人的视觉，听觉，嗅觉被偶然聚合的景象充分打开，热情，阳光，梦幻，快乐，兴奋，这些词便在我的脑海里陆续飘过。人对一个城市的第一印象就此形成，美丽。

塞维利亚有一款橙子味道的香水，还有一个美丽的名字，塞维利亚的空气。因为塞维利亚路边全是橙子树，春天是白色橙花绽放的季节，满城飘香，冬天是橙子结果的季节，也是橙子汁水最足，味道最好，价格便宜的季节，来到这里，见过冬日街边满树橙子的人，谁又能拒绝这款塞维利亚的空气呢？

我走进了莫不谷保存在Seville googlelist里的一家小众香水店，Naturally, aromas of Seville，店员在我的手腕上试了orange bloosm的香水后，我便忍不住把这款美丽的味道买下，出门走在大街上，整个人被成熟的橙子圈起来一个味道的结界，感觉自己变成发现美味食物疯狂闻嗅的狗，抑亦或者变成猫薄荷上头的猫，不停用鼻子闻着喷过香水的手腕，再使劲嗅着空气里的留香，难以自拔。

这次南部游荡是和粽子一起，Alicante游荡是和莫不谷还有荷兰朋友小鱼儿一起。我在香港，波兰，英国等地体验过solotrip，一个人游荡的好处是自在，随性，方便，体验自己独自和世界交手。而我更多地是和朋友一起游荡，既有和莫路狂花的多次全球游荡，也有和女性朋友们一起的集体游荡。与人一起便有相处的问题，特别是在游荡过程中，价值观，消费观，性格特点，生活习惯，个人胃口，出行安排等等是否能够合得来，都会影响游荡体验。

而另一方面，和朋友们结伴游荡的好处也很明显。《拼团人生》这本书里说，分享快乐，快乐会加倍；分享悲伤，悲伤会减半。在Alicante阿利坎特和女性朋友们一起出门游荡，去美丽的地中海边徒步，大快朵颐人均19欧元海鲜饕餮自助，晚上一起投影看“快乐小偷”英文脱口秀，又在第二日一起去中央市场采购新鲜牛肉和海鲜，共同制作美味的贵州酸汤牛肉海鲜火锅，吃完再一起打扫收拾。

人多热闹也多，能够一起创造的记忆也多，感觉和相处愉快的朋友呆在一起，生活也变得丰富和有意思起来。

我不是群居动物，我常常独居，不爱聊天，对人没有好奇心，喜欢独自行动，遇到事了还喜欢躲在蜗牛壳里避免被发现。可与志同道合的朋友短暂共居的我会感到比平时多一点的安心，这个感觉挺奇妙。就像是自己独自玩游戏，过程很投入很开心，结束后总还是有些虚无。但是和人一起玩游戏感受就会有些不同。

前段时间莫不谷发起了“你画我猜”欧洲女子联赛，和芬兰的粽子，瑞士的Ruya，Ruya的意大利米兰朋友Max，还有荷兰的朋友茶茶分别玩了三场在线游戏，每次都玩两三个小时不过瘾，灵魂画手的我画的A4纸都要冒火星子，而玩游戏时，我的胜负欲，集中力，想象力和创造力也被高度调动起来，甚至前一天通宵看网文《祝姑娘今天掉坑了吗》睡不够，也丝毫不影响玩游戏。

也因为如此，莫不谷的每次游戏提议我都很心动，游荡提议同样心动。

最近沉迷看《祝姑娘今天掉坑了吗》，网文里的大部分角色无一不被祝姑娘折服，相信跟着祝姑娘不愁人生前路。网文外的我，也忍不住为祝姑娘折服，不自觉代入想跟着她干事业的人物角色。又总在阅读文字的时候想到莫不谷，跟着小祝大人不愁前路，跟着莫不谷则是不愁美食和职业。

这次在Alicante游荡，就跟着莫不谷一起体验了新的美食，还经历了神奇的际遇。还没来西班牙前，莫不谷就一直沉迷熟成鱼，咔咔学习熟成知识，时不时和我分享美食视频，还建议我去寿司店学习一下，以后开餐厅就可以负责活缔杀鱼。所以她在确定Alicante游荡机票的当天，就找好了熟成牛肉的餐厅，因为熟成鱼要去伦敦和巴黎才能吃到而且价格高昂。

没想到在Alicante一家中超店铺里的包子铺吃早餐时，莫不谷又在念叨这件事，谁能想到小小包子铺的老板是全世界钓鱼的爱好者，最近一次钓过300多公斤，价值一万多欧元约合人民币十几万的金枪鱼，而恰好他昨天刚钓的，做了活鱼取缔，还没来得及送给朋友的金枪鱼亚种就在包子铺的水桶里。更难想到的是这个山东青岛老板0桢起手，二话不说便把鱼拿出来现场处理做刺身，同时搭配了酱油和芥末的日式吃法，柠檬和白糖的泰式吃法，还用打火机将柠檬和白糖在三文鱼上烤制一下，最后将整条鱼全部免费送给我们品尝！

这是任谁怎么想都想不出来的奇遇，但和有着强烈渴望和心愿的莫不谷一起，感觉什么奇迹都有可能发生。

（莫不谷在游荡者网站分享的aha moment）

另一个惊奇的小故事是，我们前一天晚上在Alicante中央市场买了新鲜便宜，只要2欧一个的地中海蓝蟹，简单水煮就可以吃到清甜可口的蟹肉。因为吃不过瘾，第二天莫不谷又要飞回荷兰，飞行当天我又去中央市场给莫不谷带了两个螃蟹。由于生螃蟹无法带上飞机，莫不谷便提出一个在我看来很难想到，想到也做不到的方法，先去包子铺吃早餐，到时候请包子铺老板帮忙煮螃蟹。

我是真没想到这事能成。为避免被拒绝的尴尬我还提议要不要以支付加工费的方式试试，说不定老板能同意在包子铺帮忙煮螃蟹。结果吃完早餐消费完毕的莫不谷和老板开口说明情况，希望老板能帮忙煮一下，勇猛地开口不仅成功煮上了地中海螃蟹，还由此聊到她心心念念的熟成鱼，接着就是意外惊喜地吃上了珍贵的活鱼刺身。

跟着这个小故事的后续是，莫不谷在飞机上突然太饿了，干了一件极其疯狂的事，在飞机上把两个螃蟹啃干净了。然而不仅没有人投诉反馈，对面荷兰人还热心借给她湿纸巾，空少还过来帮忙收拾垃圾。对我来说，真是惊奇，震惊和佩服打个包裹在一起，一波又一波来袭。

而另一个印象深刻难以忘怀的游荡奇遇是，这次我们居然在Alicante遇到了双彩虹！今年春天我和莫不谷一起来Alicante爬山时，风景超级美丽，由于阳光太好洒在巴拉巴拉城堡城墙时，有一种不必吃苦人就来到了埃及的感受。

这次11月来Alicante再爬巴拉巴拉城堡，冬天植物没那么茂盛，天气也有些阴天，完全没有了埃及的感受，甚至爬山中途还突然下起了小雨，可就在我给粽子拍照时，一抬头看到了两轮巨大的彩虹悬挂空中，一头连接Alicante这座城市，一头直直插入蔚蓝清澈的地中海，仿佛这难得的双霓虹是从神秘的海里生长出来的，我们惊奇地喊出声来，山上的人们纷纷拿起手机抬头看向美丽的天空。

斯景双霓虹，遇上方知有。游荡路上的奇迹，是出了门看到，吃到，体验到，真的有可能发生，甚至一定会发生在有着强烈渴望和热情的人身上。我不像莫不谷那样对美食，创作有激情，热情和渴望。虽不能至，心向往之。所以我先出个门再说。

最后分享一些本次游荡的图片！

成为放学以后Newsletter月度会员，可以解锁既往所有付费内容，解锁完记得在权益期及时查看所有付费内容，以最大化享受权益。如下月不再继续付费订阅，也记得及时解除，以防发生计划外扣费；爱发电支持购买单期付费播客或文章。大家可根据自身情况选择最适合的方式，苹果用户请不要下载appstore的爱发电app，是诈骗。

放学以后爱发电“电铺”：https://afdian.com/a/afterschool?tab=shop

《创作者手册：从播客开始说起》（小册子）系列https://afdian.com/item/ffcd59481b9411ee882652540025c377

run&rebel系列1《朋友们，Run and Rebel：快逃以及反抗！》https://afdian.com/item/2b3a33acfd3311ecb4d852540025c377

run&rebel系列2《在这个时代，做个反派》https://afdian.com/item/b9c74240bcff11ed86fe5254001e7c00

run&rebel系列3《爹和爹味，吐槽大会》https://afdian.com/item/6529d622092011ee8a1352540025c377

run&rebel系列4《活在历史的垃圾时间，我们如何度过时代的乱纪元？》https://afdian.com/item/90682ea4c68611ef8e645254001e7c00

run&rebel系列5《让我们不吐不快：各行各业，各个工种，各色牛马，吐槽齐发》https://afdian.com/item/87b95f1ac32111f0b10552540025c377

放学以后《莫路狂花今夜不设防：人如何不糊弄和痛恨自己，并找到自己的渴望呢？》https://afdian.com/item/e4b68686a67911ef8f2f5254001e7c00

放学以后《莫路狂花2：如何对自己充满爱意和敬意，免于混乱逃避低活力？》https://afdian.com/item/3572eaba3a6d11f0ac9052540025c377

放学以后《终身学习1：学会面对真问题，不逃避，下决心和谈分离》https://afdian.com/item/e96a78d4619c11f09e8552540025c377

游荡者平台：www.youdangzhe.com 或者www.youdangzhewander.com

Tony Stark and Justin Mc return for Second Breakfast. In Part I, we break down the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS).

Today, our conversation covers…

• What a National Security Strategy is, and why they matter,

• Controversial new inclusions in Trump’s NSS, including on Taiwan policy and the “reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health,”

• How to reconcile the document’s ambitious vision for deterrence with the reality of Trump’s China policy,

• The mixed signals this NSS sends to U.S. allies,

• What Buffalo Wild Wings can teach us about competition with China.

Listen now on iTunes, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

Ends, Means, and One China

Jordan Schneider: Tony, give us the 101 on what a National Security Strategy is, and then we’re all going to go around and say one nice thing about it.

Tony Stark: There are three major U.S. government national security strategy documents. The first is the National Military Strategy, which applies to the uniformed services but is rarely noticed outside the Joint Staff.

Next is the National Defense Strategy (NDS), which is the Pentagon’s primary strategic document. It’s the one most people in the field care about because it’s a Cabinet-level document, even if it isn’t overtly political. Legally, a new NDS is required every four years, and developing a new NDS takes 6 to 18 months. New administrations are given a little extra time — about a year and a half — to publish their first one.

The NDS is written at the “action officer” level, which includes General Schedule (GS) employees, field-grade officers, contractors, and think tank experts. Then it is passed up to the Deputy Assistant Secretary level in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) — their equivalents are three-star generals — and then to the commands, the undersecretaries, and so on.

Finally, there’s the National Security Strategy (NSS), which is historically the most political of the documents because it comes out of the White House, not the Pentagon. The NSS is a guiding vision of the administration’s goals and incorporates all elements of national power. Historically, this is also the blandest document — its wide scope reads more as a political statement than a defense plan. The new Trump administration just released its first NSS. While the NDS has been ready for a while, they were likely waiting to publish the NSS first.

At 29 pages, the new NSS is the right length for a public national strategy document. There are usually non-public, classified annexes and other materials.

Justin McIntosh: The document correctly focuses on economic re-industrialization and re-energizing the defense industrial base — issues we’ve previously discussed. It puts those ideas forward in its “answers” section. But…

Jordan Schneider: No “buts.”

Justin McIntosh: Okay! Yes, that’s where the focus should be.

Jordan Schneider: The straightforward questions in the document are nice. The Q&A rhythm is interesting and provocative. It’s focused. There’s a section of questions like, “What should the U.S. want overall?” and “What does the U.S. want from the world?” There’s no artifice about how transactional it’s going to be — what you see is what you get.

Tony Stark: If I were framing a strategy document for the American people, this is how I would structure it. A clear layout saying, “This is what we want. This is why we have a strategy. What are the ends, ways, and means? What does that mean?” It’s written in a clear, accessible way, without many buzzwords. Although what replaced the buzzwords wasn’t great.

Jordan Schneider: Avoiding policy jargon in this document seems to have been a conscious choice.

Justin McIntosh: But it lacks nuanced, impartial language and contains statements that our adversaries will exploit. A comment on the necessity of securing borders said that any sovereign nation has the right to control them. The PRC and Russia can easily seize on a statement like that. This is a kind of language previous administrations have avoided, because they didn’t want a quote interpreted as agreeing with the Chinese or Russian position.

Tony Stark: The document does not change U.S. policy towards Taiwan. If anyone tells you it does, they are wrong. However, it does give the PRC political and legal ammunition. They can now say, “But you said you wouldn’t interfere in the internal affairs of others,” pointing to our supposed principles of non-interventionism.

The document also says we do have to intervene sometimes. This amounts to talking out of both sides of your mouth — we reserve the right to do whatever we want. The “flexible realism” section is a fancy way of saying we’ll do whatever is convenient. Historically, that has been U.S. foreign policy in practice, but that doesn’t mean it’s what we should aspire to.

Justin McIntosh: I don’t have a problem with them laying out the “ends, ways, and means” discussion up front, but it has limitations. That linear framework is well-suited to military decision-making, but a national strategy needs to be more pragmatic and flexible. At the national level, you control all the resources. You can marshal all those resources toward any goal that is deemed important. That makes the “ends, ways, and means” calculation irrelevant because you will find a way to make it happen.

Jordan Schneider: The Trump administration’s focus on “ends, ways, and means” raises the question — how weak do they think the U.S. really is?

Reducing the U.S.’s power to an “ends, ways, and means” calculation only works in military contexts — counting ships and battalions to see how many wars you can fight. The U.S.’s power to achieve economic and national security ends is elastic. The means to those ends can grow dramatically when the president builds a consensus around them — once the nation decides something must be done, it finds the capacity to do it.

It’s a mistake to define goals downward because those goals inevitably change. Consider the border — the Biden administration didn’t prioritize the issue and struggled to find the means. The Trump administration’s intense focus on the border unlocked congressional funding and operational capacity. The resources didn’t appear from nowhere — the will to use them did. This dynamic applies globally. To believe the U.S. cannot act because it lacks on-hand capabilities is a severely limited way of thinking about our power to shape events.

Mixed Signals

Tony Stark: The document’s focus on military and economic power isn’t unique, but its goals do not align with a realistic budget. It calls for both bolstering deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and shifting our entire global military posture to the Western Pacific, which would drain resources from Europe and Latin America. We have to assume this will happen.

This creates deep concern for our allies, but that matters for the U.S. too. The Germans will be wildly pissed about how they are described in the document. Asian allies are told to “do more,” a demand that ignores their significant recent efforts. Getting allies to increase defense contributions was an accomplishment of the first Trump administration that continued under Biden. The call to “do more” is now an outdated talking point — they are doing more. Japan is considering exporting weapons for the first time.

Justin McIntosh: Worse still, when allies make the kinds of statements the U.S. wants — like Sanae Takaichi declaring a PLA incursion into Taiwan a national security threat to Japan — the administration’s response is silence. Based on the reporting of Xi and Trump’s call, it appears the U.S. did not affirm that position. Instead of backing Japan’s strong stance, the message was to “calm it down.”

The Trump administration is sending mixed signals. Does it want allies to spend more on defense, develop a stronger defense mindset, and care more about their own security, or not?

Jordan Schneider: Let’s do some reading from the scripture here.

“A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of strategic competition. There is rightly much focus on Taiwan, partly because of Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan provides direct access to the second island chain and splits Northeast and Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Hence, preventing a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority. We will also maintain our long-standing declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States did not support any unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”

From that, it sounds like a good idea for Japan to make its role in deterrence transparent. How seriously should we take any of these documents?

Tony Stark: I wish Eric were here for another briefcase-carrier rant. In the 2010s, a gripe of mine was hearing mainstream national security people, the ones in the know, say strategy documents don’t matter. That is a clear indicator they either haven’t written a good strategy document or haven’t marshalled the resources and people to execute it. I’ve occasionally had to metaphorically beat somebody over the head with a strategy document.

One problem is that people don’t read strategy documents. I have been in meetings with theater-level commands who’ve asked me, “What are you quoting from?” And my response is, “The National Defense Strategy.” They’ll ask me to send it to them. It’s a public document.

Justin McIntosh: “No, no, we meant the classified annex, Tony. Obviously, we’ve read the public one.”

Tony Stark: “The super-secret one that wasn’t even fully distributed to your command.”

Justin McIntosh: The document doesn’t matter, and there isn’t a robust national security apparatus anymore — at least in this administration — it’s as if the President is the sole decision-maker. Trump has consolidated his counsel — it’s a smaller group than it was.

Another problem is that the strategy document’s promises are often the opposite of what the president himself has done. The strategy specifically addresses deterring propaganda aimed at Americans, clearly referencing China, and yet TikTok is still legal here.

When X turned on a filter showing where accounts came from, it revealed so-called Mongolian accounts weren’t Mongolian, and supposed Uyghur accounts were run from mainland China. Pro-MAGA accounts were operated from VPNs in India and China to target Americans. Where was the action on that propaganda? We kept TikTok, and no one has suggested the government force X to shut down foreign influence accounts. These goals are in the document, but the follow-through is missing.

Tony Stark: Every administration struggles with inconsistencies between its strategy and actions. That’s the nature of a democracy — it’s the nature of any government worldwide. This strategy document’s main issue is its unusual use of national security language. The strategy says the administration opposes disinformation, but what do they consider disinformation? There are direct quotes that frame concepts like “de-radicalization” and “protecting our democracy” as a fake guise — that inclusion is wild.

On foreign policy, the document critiques the U.S. for focusing too much on projecting “liberal ideology” into Africa — it’s unclear if that means big ‘L’ or small ‘l’ liberal. Let’s assume it’s both. The most stunning part is that the National Security Strategy of the United States explicitly frames the concept of “protecting our democracy” as a ruse. That is insane.

The parts of a strategy document that truly matter are the ones that diverge from the previous strategies. While I’ve critiqued previous strategies, this document is on another level.

Justin McIntosh: The large section on China is a good example. It would be great if the administration enacted many of the listed actions — I’d be all for it. The cognitive dissonance between the strategy document and the administration’s actions is troubling.

Jordan Schneider: Six months ago, the AI action plan included interesting language about new export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Those controls are paused because Stephen Miller’s current job is to avoid upsetting China. This directive came after a Chinese official was angered by a Financial Times article on Alibaba and the PLA. Stephen Miller’s Twitter banner is a picture of him shaking hands with Xi. This is hard to square with official strategy documents demanding military overmatch.

You can try to connect those dots and argue that the goal is to keep the economic relationship calm while we re-industrialize and build up our military. Okay, maybe. But that still doesn’t explain the U.S NSS includes sovereignty language seemingly copied and pasted from Putin’s playbook.

Traditional Values, Universal Wings

Tony Stark: The document is also very undergraduate. That is not a critique of the accessible language — I also try to write for a wider audience — but of the concepts themselves. If an undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin were assigned the paper topic — what should a national security strategy be — this would be that paper.

Jordan Schneider: There are 14 bullet points where each sentence is about seven words long.

Tony Stark: What does this all mean? The language in the National Security Strategy should not shock anyone — it’s consistent with the administration’s usual rhetoric. What has changed is that this language is now the official guidance — it has leverage in bureaucratic fights. The influence may not be immediate, but it will be cumulative. The real test will be when the National Defense Strategy comes out. Someone who worked on it texted me last night and said, “Well, they set the bar low, so this is great for us.”

Justin McIntosh: They’re being pragmatic. What troubled me was the traditionalist language at the end.

“Finally, we want the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age. We want a people who are proud, happy, and optimistic that they will leave their country to the next generation better than they found it. We want a gainfully employed citizenry—with no one sitting on the sidelines—who take satisfaction from knowing that their work is essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families. This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”

Tony Stark: “We will use every means to protect our precious bodily fluids.”

Jordan Schneider: Wait, if you’re raising a disabled child, or if your child is sick with a fever, then you are not contributing to the restoration of American cultural and spiritual health? Wow.

Tony Stark: That is what RFK Jr. said — if your kid is sick, that’s not a good societal contribution.

Justin McIntosh: His miasmas are off, or whatever non-germ-theory medicine he peddles but doesn’t practice.

Tony Stark: The Midi-chlorians from Star Wars.

Justin McIntosh: That language is reminiscent of what you see from Putin and China’s family planning policies. It is the exact type of language that Xi and Putin use to justify pro-natalist policies and promote traditional families and traditional gender roles. Reading about the one-child policy in Dan Wang’s Breakneck is heartbreaking if you have children. It’s striking how similar the NSS’s language is to China’s early discussion of the one-child policy.

Tony Stark: In a reasonable time, there would be ten articles asking, “What does this mean? How is the government going to encourage people to have more kids?” Now, it’s something I don’t even want to read about.

After COVID-19, as the “China Rising” narrative was gaining prominence in 2021 and 2022, discussions began in national security circles about how the U.S. population is numerically outmatched. Although we are solving that problem with robotics, it was a talking point among traditionalists. They argued that the U.S. won the Cold War by embracing traditional values. That’s not how we won. We won thanks to Skunk Works and the Soviet Union’s economic mismanagement.

This argument has surfaced before in national security circles — it’s not a new phenomenon. The other common concern is protecting our food supply — I’m surprised it was not mentioned in the document. But, to quote a former coworker of mine, “We have Buffalo Wild Wings and the Chinese don’t. I think we’re okay.”

Jordan Schneider: That would be a great cultural export. Maybe that’s what the world needs.

Tony Stark: Are there Buffalo Wild Wings locations in Shanghai or Beijing?

Justin McIntosh: I’m sure there’s one in Taipei. [Note from Lily: Taiwan does not have a Buffalo Wild Wings, but it does have three Hooters locations.]

Tony Stark: Is the food different, or is it universal?

Justin McIntosh: It’s universal, but like McDonald’s in Japan, it’s better.

Tony Stark: Another American cultural victory. We don’t need to change anything.

Justin McIntosh: You can watch a baseball game while eating Buffalo Wild Wings in downtown Taipei.

Tony Stark: During COVID, my former American University professor, Justin Jacobs, uploaded all his lectures on Spotify — excellent lectures on the history of China and Japan. He has an episode about why baseball is played in Taiwan but not on the mainland. He discusses the Japanese occupation of Taiwan and the differences in Confucian culture and masculinity. Prof. Jacobs is an amazing resource for East Asian history.

Jordan Schneider: I asked Gemini what other regimes this resembles. It suggested Vichy France, Fascist Italy, and modern Hungary.

Justin McIntosh: I wonder what Grok would say…