Sign up for weekly new releases, exclusive access to live debates, and Open to Debate’s educational newsletters.
In 2024, the total trade value between the U.S. and China was around $583 billion. For decades, China has been a central node in global supply chains and a primary trade partner for the U.S. However, with retaliatory tariffs and the rise of China’s geopolitical and technological influence, concerns have emerged that economic interdependence may be empowering a regime increasingly hostile to U.S. interests. Those in favor of decoupling argue the U.S. must reduce national security threats and make its manufacturing sector less reliant on Chinese supply chains. They also contend that decoupling could also give the U.S. more leverage in addressing China’s military expansion and threats toward Taiwan. Those against decoupling warn it would negatively affect global markets and harm American businesses, particularly in tech, agriculture, and retail, that depend on China as a supplier or customer. Severing economic ties could also slow innovation, hurt global progress on shared challenges, and drive China further into alliances with America’s strategic rivals.
With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Decouple from China?
This debate was recorded live on April 21, 2025 at the Council on Foreign Relations and will be released on Friday, April 25th.
Benn Steil
A little bit of historical context to close in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, when the United States set out to decouple from the Soviet Union, it was the easiest thing in the world because our two economies were never coupled in the first place. We set up our own global economy all by ourselves, allied with the 16 Marshall Plan Nations and Japan. We accounted for two thirds of global GDP after the Second World War, and none of us were doing any trading with the Soviet Union. So decoupling was simple. It’s nothing like that. Now, our allies today are deeply integrated with the Chinese economy in Asia for Japan, South Korea and Australia. China is their number one trade partner, not the United States, and they’re not going to join our decoupling folly. Unilateral decoupling will undermine our economy. It will undermine our alliances and it will undermine our national security. And I would also argue that it’s unworthy of the country, which in the aftermath of the devastation of World War II created the Marshall Plan, created the precursors to the European Union, created the World Trade Organization, and created the liberal International order of which generations of Americans are rightfully so proud. Thank you.
John Donvan
Thank you. So as we close, I’d like to ask the four debaters to come up and join me here, not only so we can have a photograph, but so that I can thank them personally. I also want to acknowledge first of all our CEO Clay O’Connor, who’s here tonight and presides over this important or partnership at front row round of applause. And we also want to thank the Council on Foreign Relations. We love partnering with you and doing these debates. And in particular Michael Roman for welcoming us here tonight. Thank you so much. And most of all, I want to thank our four debaters. As I said at the beginning, we want to prove that people can disagree with each other and do so in good faith. We were counting on these debaters to demonstrate that skill, that set of values. And I want to say you all did it remarkably well, and we very much appreciate it and appreciate that we can finish a night like this with a handshake. So thank you so much. Goodbye everybody. We’ll see you next time.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION