Biden Escalates Trade War With China
A new national emergency declaration will allow for the creation of an outbound investment screening system targeting Americans' investments in China.

The Biden administration escalated America's trade war with China on Wednesday, as President Joe Biden declared a new national emergency and immediately used it as the justification for creating a new screening system that will limit Americans' ability to invest overseas.
The new rules, which have been in development since last year, will prohibit private equity and venture capital firms from investing in China-based businesses working in a variety of high-tech fields, The New York Times reports. The ban will apply to businesses working to develop artificial intelligence and those that build or develop semiconductors, the tiny chips that power modern computers. American investments that flow to other Chinese businesses will also be subject to new government scrutiny.
All of that springs from a vaguely worded executive order issued Wednesday afternoon. In that order, Biden declared the "rapid advancement in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence capabilities" by "countries of concern"—China is not mentioned by name—to be a national emergency. In response to the newly declared national emergency, Biden directed the Commerce Department and Treasury to design new rules governing outbound investments.
Congress, of course, will not be involved in the process.
"This narrowly targeted action will complement our existing export control and inbound investment screening tools, and protect our national security while maintaining our longstanding commitment to open investment," the Treasury Department said in a statement.
Narrow or not, this is the first time that the U.S. government has targeted outgoing investments in such a manner. As I reported in a feature published in this month's issue of Reason, the effort appears to be modeled on a similar screening system for inbound investments that was created in the 1970s and recently given greater powers. Biden administration officials, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, have in recent months talked about the desire to limit how private sector investments flow between the U.S. and China—often blurring the lines between economic and military concerns.
The idea to create an outbound investment screening mechanism, Yellen said in a speech in April, was "driven by straightforward national security considerations. We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force tradeoffs with our economic interests."
Biden's executive order echoed that framing—acknowledging the importance of global trade, but then declaring that vague national security concerns must be valued as more important. "Open global capital flows create valuable economic opportunities and promote competitiveness, innovation, and productivity, and the United States supports cross-border investment, where not inconsistent with the protection of United States national security interests," the president wrote. "However, certain United States investments may accelerate and increase the success of the development of sensitive technologies and products in countries that develop them to counter United States and allied capabilities."
Wednesday's announcement by the White House is a significant expansion of what the U.S. government considers to be under the purview of national security. It is in some ways similar to how former President Donald Trump flexed his executive power to declare steel and aluminum imports to be national security concerns. In both cases, the government's definition of what's in America's national security interest has been stretched wider so officials can have greater control over the private transactions of businesses and individuals.
"For a long time, the U.S. national security community has been reticent to recognize the international financial system as a potential warfighting domain," Claire Chu, a senior China analyst at Janes (a defense intelligence company) told The New York Times on Wednesday. "And the business community has pushed back against what it considers to be the politicization of private markets. And so this is not only an interagency effort, but an exercise in intersectoral coordination."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other entities have raised similar worries, as I reported in the piece for this month's issue of Reason. There are only two other countries—South Korea and Taiwan—that have outbound investment screening systems, making Wednesday's announcement yet another blow to the global norm of free-flowing capital.
Though the specifics of the outbound investment screening system remain to be seen, there's no doubt that Wednesday's announcement is a significant escalation of the ongoing political conflict between the world's two largest economies. It is likely to end up being a massive power grab aimed at severing the peaceful exchange of money and goods across national borders.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
What does it have to say about restricting investment? C'mon, tease us with just a taste of it's genius.
Well, I’m sure it was done strategically and reluctantly.
Without mean tweets.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
… creation of an outbound investment screening system..
10% for the big guy.
Elon Musk’s X/Twitter fined after fighting Biden DOJ warrant for release of Donald Trump’s Twitter account
I saw that. I thought the interesting subtext is they required a warrant. Had it been Jack Dorsey, they'd have just asked the FBI agent in the corner office to forward them all the relevant personal data.
Dorsey largely lost control of Twitter to the Board about six years earlier. Rumor has it he was assisting Musk behind the scenes during the takeover.
Given that Dorsey is one of the only tech kajillionaires that showed any contrition over Big Tech censorship and the deep-state shenanigans, that seems plausible.
Any word on his escalation of war-war with... never mind.
They did an article about cluster bombs, what more do you want?
I remember reading that blog while drinking coffee.
Trump trade wars GREAT! Biden trade wars EVIL! 'Cause Tribalism!!!
(Fuck ALL trade wars... Just to be clear here!)
Trump’s trade wars were more betterer because they were terrific and he owned the commie libs, and China is evil, except when it’s helping Russia flatten
Ukrainethe neo Nazis, then it’s good. So that’s why trade war with them now is bad. Bidenomics amirite?Don’t be like sarc.
Notice none of the people that supported the trade wars under Trump are shitting on Biden for continuing them.
Maybe they’re a little more principled than you guys want to admit.
DesigNate wrote "Notice none of the people that supported (Trump's) trade wars are (insulting) Biden for continuing them." DesigNate followed up by saying, "Maybe they're a little more principled than you guys want to admit."
Thank you for raising this possibility, because I did NOT notice, and I confess, I AM reluctant to admit they're principled. Sorry to have to ask, but could you name a commenter or two who supported Trump's trade wars?
>>new screening system that will limit Americans' ability to invest overseas.
so he escalated the war with Americans.
Invest in China, come for the slave labor, stay for the IP theft.
We aren't allowed to talk about the fact that China is not a free market actor here. Koch libertarianism requires us to be naive.
If you know anything about the Chinese economy and how it works, one would be keenly aware that China has been engaging in a trade war with the rest of the world for decades. I think it's a perfectly reasonable approach to Chinese mercantilism to simply say, "Hey, why don't you open your markets a little bit, ease some restrictions, and we might be less likely to impose our own."
But it seems to me the [L]ibertarianism has this attitude that we just just be thankful for the defensive knife wounds on our proverbial economic hands and arms, and sit idly by in the name of some guiding principle about "free" trade, even if that free trade is literally one direction, and one direction only.
I have no personal opinion on the specifics of the Biden schemes and am perfectly willing to accept that they either won't work or will have a counter-productive effect. But to sit an pretend that we should just sit and do nothing while the rest of the world does the opposite of nothing to us is willful ignorance.
we just just be thankful for the defensive knife wounds on our proverbial economic hands and arms
Borders are just arbitrary social constructs, like gender signs on bathrooms and locker rooms and if wholly captured, aggressive trade wants to identify as free, you're a totalitarian conservative for denying its lived experiences.
Also, because Africa and S. America make $0.77 on the dollar, Classical Liberalism suggests the Radical Left was right and we should adopt bitcoin.
The Biden Administration may not realize it yet, but the REAL crisis won't have anything to do with foreign investments or trade with nations of concern - it's going to center around increasing numbers of Americans who no longer trust the government and, on the contrary, are actively resisting and defying arbitrary government abuse of power. Although I was disappointed in the response of most Americans to the outrageous pandemic lockdowns - acting more like sheep than free humans - the damage has been done. Inflation, supply shortages, high profile political fights, lawlessness in the cities, the culture wars and polarization have even the most cowardly Americans angry now and it will not be easy for our lords and masters to put the genie back into the bottle.
The food shortages in the cities will be interesting.
Shocking as well as surprising.
China will, of course, remain free to continue to invest in the Bidens...I mean, America...as much as they like.
"...aimed at severing the peaceful exchange of goods/services across national borders."??? ALL governments are based on the initiation of force, threats, NOT voluntary exchange. Free trade, capitalism is not compatible with any govt.
If you want freedom you have to stop voting to be coercively ruled, stop creating the master/slave system we have now, worldwide. You have to boycott violence, adopt politics based on reason, rights, choice. To be free, you have to self-govern peacefully and respect the rights of others to do the same.
Free trade, capitalism is not compatible with any govt.
Sure it is. How do you enforce contracts?
BTW your Utopian world has not come close to being implemented. This suggests that there may be issues with it you have not considered.
SRG wrote: “How do you enforce contracts?”
Thank you for asking! Historically, there have been trades between persons in different nations without a worldwide governing body. That implies that your question wasn’t an absolute barrier to trade.
We know that perfect enforcement is not strictly necessary, because courts sometimes mess up /now/, and yet we still have contracts.
One answer to “How do you enforce contracts?” is “by reputation.” That could be as primitive as “We stand behind our word, even when it hurts us, so that everyone will want to make contracts with us.” Or it could be a little fancier, like there being a non-governmental reputation rating agency that the contracts guys on both sides pay attention to when making the contracts. The Better Business Bureau and Underwriters Laboratories are real life analogs to this.
There’s a proposed approach to enforcing contracts that’s even fancier. There could be non-governmental courts and non-governmental enforcers in the style of Medieval Iceland’s Althing and private enforcers. Making that method work in a modern complex society is tricky, but a plausible approach is covered in David D. Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom.” To make it persuasive enough is complicated enough that it takes longer than a comment to explain.
I tried to emphasize real world examples, in order to partly address SRG's concerns about utopias. But SRG's concern about there being issues that I haven't considered still stands.
Smartphone prices going up.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1689435398747848704?t=wSl1ku348oaduB3yXUdnDw&s=19
BREAKING: Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate Fernando Villavicencio assassinated at campaign event - Local media
[Video]
How about US companies investing in Uighur work farms? Or forcing Chinese children to mine heavy metals for the Chinese military? Surely sex slavery would have enormous profit potential considering the number of Chinese men without female "companionship".
Is it really necessary for US companies to help build up the Chinese military so they can terrorize Taiwan into submission?
Selling guns is a noble profession, selling guns to known assassins is not.
Candidate in Ecuador's presidential election Fernando Villavicencio shot dead
Merrick, keep this on the back burner, in case the indictments don't work out...
The way Trump's popularity keeps going higher with every new charge, he's going to be elected by acclaim if they don't watch out.
Then they really will have to shoot him and that risks a martyr.
His first inaugural address was nuts. Just imaging what this one will be like.
delivered by Michelle O likely.
I think that would set off what is probably inevitable anyway.
If someone shoots Trump. It'll be open season on Democrats. There aren't enough police in the country to protect them in that scenario.
Garland would never dirty his hands like that.
It’ll be CIA, they have a lot more experience.
Hey Boehm! You miss Trump yet?
Stupid bitch.
Time for a constitutional amendment against national emergencies.
Did we learn nothing from the Communist Chinese Virus fascism?
“Did we learn nothing from the Communist Chinese Virus fascism?”
We learned nothing, they learned plenty.
Want to make sure I understood your correctly: are you saying the Chinese government learned something from COVID-19?
Are you thinking they did not?
What?! We can’t leave it to Congress to decide when there’s an emergency or not!
So, when GE was required to transfer air controller technology developed with US government funds as a condition for GE to manufacture in China that was okay?
Cp INVESTIGATION is proud to be spearheading the legal fight against unregulated Binary Options / Forex / E-Currencies companies, helping countless financial fraud victims recover their stolen funds.“With the rise in popularity of digital currencies such as BTC, Altcoins, Binary Options, Forex, and other similar products, online fraud has exploded”, explained the spokesperson at CP-I N V E S T I G A T I O N. C O M for help .
I read Wealth of Nations . I believe in free markets. Every thing works in theory. Heck communism works in theory. Sure in America we have free markets at the local level . On the national level the name of the game is to buy up your smaller rivals get bigger then lobby Washington. Libertarians never explain how the US should manage if the become overly dependent on a country for some vital commodity medicine etc . China could decide to cut us off for their own national interest. We wouldn’t buy tanks fighter aircraft etc from them because it’s cheaper. Especially if we could possibly go to war with them . The same should be said of computer chips medicine and the products we need to live .