*In our hyper-connected era of globalized commerce, technology, and shared research, the rallying cry of “America First” is a tragic misnomer—more aptly translating to “America Last.” Though this slogan may feel like a potent assertion of national pride, it is in fact an emotional ploy designed to harness voter frustration and nostalgia rather than offer genuine pathways to prosperity. By stoking fear of “outsiders” and promoting an isolationist posture, it obscures the indispensable value of international partnerships that are quietly advancing fields like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and global health. Tragically, those who cling to “America First” remain unaware that they are being manipulated for political gain, endorsing policies that undercut America’s own potential to innovate and lead. Meanwhile, America’s scientists, universities, and private enterprises continue forging vital global alliances—sometimes behind the backs of isolationist adherents who lack a true understanding of how the world really works—culminating in new breakthroughs and opportunities that leave the manipulated further marginalized. Ultimately, they are left not only with the hollow afterglow of having served as pawns in a self-defeating charade, but find themselves consigned to a deeper ignorance that excludes them from the progress happening all around.*
In the spring of 2020, as the world contended with a devastating pandemic, trucks bearing medical supplies from China rumbled across tarmacs at American airports. Simultaneously, American pharmacological research relied on Chinese data samples to develop life-saving therapeutics. Such scenes of interdependence played out daily, yet a very different narrative dominated news cycles: fervent calls to “decouple” from China, warnings of a “new Cold War,” and renewed vigor behind the slogan “America First.” The cognitive dissonance was striking. On one hand, the United States was dependent on Chinese manufacturing, data, and talent; on the other, there was the persistent call to retreat from those very relationships. The tension between these realities illuminates a broader absurdity: in an age of deeply interconnected research, trade, and technological cooperation, the notion of a single country standing monolithically “first” has become untenable—even self-defeating.
For decades, the United States and China have been locked in a complex dance that spans every conceivable domain, from high-stakes diplomacy and security to research collaboration and consumer markets. This elaborate interplay involves not only governments but also universities, private enterprises, scientific researchers, and individual consumers. Technology giants in Silicon Valley rely on components and manufacturing processes that trace back to Shenzhen. The robust ranks of doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers powering American innovation are significantly bolstered by Chinese nationals. Next-generation breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI), genomics, and bioengineering transcend national borders, drawing upon shared data, open-source frameworks, and joint funding initiatives. In short, the world’s two largest economies are inextricably entangled.
And yet, “America First” persists in the political imagination, particularly among certain right-wing constituencies. The slogan, once evocative of an isolationist posture prior to U.S. involvement in World War II, has been resurrected in modern times to rally electoral support through appeals to fear, nostalgia, and xenophobia. Critics and analysts warn that this emotionally charged rhetoric disregards the realities of 21st-century scientific and economic networks. In fact, if fully actualized, a decoupling from China would have disastrous consequences for America’s own technological and economic leadership.
This article examines the disjunction between the simplistic, populist narrative of “America First” and the layered realities of global interdependence—particularly focusing on the indispensable role of Chinese-American partnerships in AI, biotechnology, and other advanced fields. By drawing on current collaborations, historical context, and emerging data, we see that America’s future greatness hinges not on going it alone, but on intelligently navigating a shared, multipolar world.
## 1. Historical and Political Roots of the “America First” Slogan
The phrase “America First” originally surfaced long before the 21st century. It emerged in the early 1900s, used by isolationists who believed that the United States should avoid entanglements abroad. This impulse found renewed momentum in the period just before Pearl Harbor, epitomized by the America First Committee, which vehemently opposed U.S. entry into the European theater of World War II. The argument then, much like now, was that America’s interests lie best served by abstaining from global conflicts, focusing instead on domestic prosperity.
However, the 21st-century invocation of “America First” diverges from its predecessor in crucial ways. It is no longer a purely isolationist stance; it often coexists with belligerent saber-rattling toward perceived adversaries. Donald Trump, for instance, employed the slogan during his presidency, leveraging a stew of economic protectionism, anti-immigrant fervor, and a carefully cultivated fear of China’s growing influence. The rhetorical potency of the phrase rests in its simplicity, tapping into deep-seated anxieties among voters who feel left behind by globalization, automation, and shifting job markets.
Yet consider the contradictions: under the Trump administration, the United States not only withdrew from various international agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership—but it simultaneously levied tariffs and restricted the flow of certain technologies to and from China. Despite these efforts, trade deficits persisted, and American companies continued to rely on Chinese supply chains. The slogans resounded, but the underlying systems of interdependence remained largely intact. Indeed, while stoking public animosity toward China, American multinational corporations quietly expanded their global footprints. This duplicity underscores a reality rarely acknowledged in populist rhetoric: the complexities of the global economy cannot be neatly undone by nationalistic proclamations.
## 2. Political Strategy and Electoral Gains
### Fear as a Political Tool
It is an old adage that fear can unite as few rational arguments can. In electoral politics, rallying support around a foreign threat has a long, ignoble history: the Red Scare of the 1950s, the “War on Terror” in the 2000s, and in our current epoch, the suspicion of China as an existential menace. Such rhetoric transforms external fears into political capital, consolidating specific voter blocs and framing ideological opponents as naive or even traitorous.
### Populism and Economic Anxiety
Over the past several decades, the gradual shift of manufacturing jobs overseas has hollowed out entire communities in the American Midwest and beyond. Political figures have frequently redirected these frustrations toward China. It is far easier to blame Beijing for job loss than to address the complex factors involved—technological automation, inadequate retraining programs, or the inexorable logic of global trade. By demonizing China, leaders galvanize working-class support without necessarily offering substantive, long-term solutions.
### The Trump Factor
Donald Trump’s narrative that China is “ripping us off” caught fire precisely because it dovetailed with preexisting populist anger. The so-called “China threat” provided a convenient villain, overshadowing the more humdrum but systemic challenge of adapting to a digitally driven and globally distributed economy. Thus, “America First” thrived as a rhetorical device, shaping trade policy, immigration rules, and technology export controls. However, this strategy, while politically advantageous in the short term, created lasting fallout for global cooperation.
## 3. Economic and Strategic Rivalry
### Control of Critical Technologies
Central to the modern “America First” mindset is the concern over who controls the technologies of the future. AI, biotechnology, quantum computing, and other transformative fields fuel the fear that whichever country dominates these spheres will hold disproportionate global power. Although cooperation persists—Apple relies on Chinese manufacturing, Microsoft’s Asia research labs have large teams in Beijing—this dynamic spawns mistrust within governments. Policymakers in Washington worry that depending on Chinese hardware or algorithms grants China undue leverage. Conversely, leaders in Beijing suspect the United States of seeking to inhibit China’s ascendancy through embargoes on semiconductors and advanced research tools.
### Intellectual Property Concerns
Another persistent talking point in the hyper-rhetoric around China is intellectual property (IP) theft. While legitimate IP issues exist—corporate espionage, cyberattacks, and forced technology transfers can and do occur—the political discourse often exaggerates these threats, overshadowing the enormous volume of legal, mutually beneficial exchanges in academia and industry. Joint patents, co-authored scientific papers, and open-source software initiatives all suggest a more complex relationship than the simplistic “they’re stealing from us” narrative implies. Nonetheless, populist bombast rarely entertains nuance, making IP theft an expedient if overly broad talking point.
### Supply Chain Risks
The COVID-19 pandemic threw supply chains into stark relief. Americans discovered that critical medical supplies and protective equipment were largely sourced from China. This reliance ignited calls for “reshoring” vital manufacturing. However, the sheer scale of infrastructure, labor capacity, and specialized expertise required for such an undertaking cannot be replicated swiftly or cheaply. The intricacy of global supply chains—where raw materials can come from multiple continents—makes the notion of a clean break unfeasible. Thus, “America First” rhetoric targeting decoupling from China often collides with the logistical reality that we lack the domestic architecture to rebuild vast segments of the industrial base overnight.
## 4. Cultural and Ideological Clash
### Authoritarianism vs. Democracy
The ideological tension between a one-party socialist state and a multi-party democracy looms large in public discourse. Concerns about China’s authoritarian governance, censorship, and state surveillance mesh naturally with Western anxieties over personal freedoms and human rights. Certainly, these issues demand sober consideration. However, legitimate criticism of China’s governance often gets co-opted by hawkish figures to stoke broad anti-Chinese sentiment, conflating the actions of the Chinese Communist Party with the Chinese people at large.
### Human Rights Issues
International outcry over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the curtailing of freedoms in Hong Kong, and ongoing restrictions in Tibet frequently serves as a moral rationale for tougher stances on China. Yet this conflation of human rights activism with economic decoupling frequently obfuscates the complexities of bilateral engagement. In an ideal world, moral and strategic considerations would converge. In practice, the interplay is far more tangled. Corporate interests, for instance, can be at odds with moral stances—many major American corporations remain deeply invested in Chinese markets despite well-publicized concerns about labor practices.
## 5. Military and Security Concerns
### Geopolitical Competition
From the waters of the South China Sea to the geopolitical flashpoint of Taiwan, the United States and China navigate a precarious balance of competition and cooperation. AI and biotechnology add further complexity, as they have significant dual-use potential for both civilian and military applications. The U.S. Department of Defense has voiced concerns that advanced technology research with Chinese entities could wind up supporting China’s military modernization efforts.
### TikTok and Data Security
An exemplar of the alarm surrounding Chinese tech infiltration is the discourse around TikTok, a social media platform owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. Critics characterize TikTok as a national security threat, fretting that user data could be funneled to Chinese authorities. Yet ironically, the same data flows that raise alarms also catalyze cross-border innovation. TikTok’s sophisticated AI algorithms, which hinge on massive user engagement data, push the boundaries of machine learning for both Chinese and American engineers. Rather than being an unequivocal threat, TikTok exemplifies the deeper entanglements underlying global technology development. Users, corporations, and politicians alike wrestle with the dual reality that the app fosters cultural exchange even as it evokes concerns about surveillance.
## 6. Media and Propaganda Dynamics
### Simplified Narratives
Media ecosystems thrive on sensationalism. Cable news and click-driven websites seldom profit from a granular, balanced treatment of global interdependence. Instead, hyper-rhetorical frames, depicting China as either a sinister monolith or a cunning strategic competitor, draw eyeballs. Meanwhile, the daily collaboration between American and Chinese scientists—sharing code, co-authoring papers—remains background noise, far less compelling to mass audiences.
### Information Echo Chambers
This sensationalist dynamic is amplified by the rise of partisan echo chambers, especially in right-wing media. Polarized outlets recast legitimate policy debates into stark, existential battles. Within these echo chambers, any argument favoring cooperation or acknowledging nuance can be vilified as unpatriotic or dangerously naive. The net result is an oversimplified worldview, directly at odds with how technological innovation and economics actually function.
## 7. Cognitive Dissonance: Industry vs. Politics
### Reality of Collaboration
Behind the scenes, America’s tech and research industries operate with a pragmatism often missing from bombastic political narratives. American companies such as Apple, Tesla, and Qualcomm rely on Chinese manufacturing and design support. Universities across the United States count on Chinese nationals for cutting-edge STEM research. Faculty at leading institutions frequently co-author papers with Chinese colleagues. In AI research specifically, studies have documented that Sino-American publications tend to be some of the most cited, implying that collaboration yields higher-impact scholarship.[1]
### Public vs. Private Messaging
A paradox arises when the same politicians lambasting China in public appear at private fundraisers thanking donors with deep business interests in China. Corporate executives, for their part, might issue patriotic statements about supply chain security while privately lobbying against policies that restrict their partnerships. This duplicity underscores the impossibility of truly severing ties without catastrophic repercussions for American competitiveness.
## 8. TikTok as a Data Pipeline—and a Case Study
*“TikTok’s data flow could indirectly contribute to innovation in AI and social analytics for both nations,”* notes a recent policy analysis. The algorithm that delivers mesmerizing dance clips and comedic shorts to hundreds of millions of users is, at its core, a sophisticated AI engine trained on vast amounts of user behavior data. This training data helps refine recommendation algorithms, refine natural language processing, and drive user engagement strategies—expertise relevant to any platform reliant on large-scale data analytics.
#### Mutual Benefits
For American data scientists, analyzing TikTok’s user trends can offer insights into rapidly shifting cultural phenomena, vital for marketing and content creation in a digital landscape. Conversely, Chinese engineers observe the global user base’s behaviors, gleaning patterns that can inform product development. Despite the relentless headlines about potential espionage, the truth is that the platform fosters an extensive if largely hidden realm of cross-border knowledge exchange.
#### Perceived Threats
Nonetheless, TikTok has become a prime target for fear-mongering. Pundits cite the theoretical risk of data leakage, ignoring that user data is often stored in servers outside China, or that many American tech platforms collect extensive data with minimal oversight. Moreover, no single entity has presented definitive evidence that TikTok’s data has been systematically misused by Chinese authorities. This does not mean the concerns are baseless. Rather, they are typically framed in the worst possible light, overshadowing the nuanced reality of technological interplay and shared advancement.
## 9. The Bigger Picture: The Entangled Nature of Innovation
Ultimately, the hyper-rhetoric around China—and the “America First” catchphrase—represents a clash between the intertwined facts of modern innovation and a political impetus to stoke fear. The deeper truth is that in areas from AI to bioengineering, interdependence is far more than a convenience; it is the engine of progress.
Consider the realm of genomics. Chinese institutions like the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) collaborate closely with American universities on genomic sequencing, a field that depends on large-scale data, specialized hardware, and expertise in statistical modeling.[2] U.S.-based research labs regularly rely on Chinese data sets to refine algorithms for precision medicine. In return, China benefits from American software tools and methodological breakthroughs in AI. These synergies cannot be easily disentangled without incurring significant damage to the pace of innovation.
Even in nuclear physics—a field with obvious national security implications—American and Chinese scientists have co-published seminal research. Every sector that touches advanced science and technology stands as a testament to transnational knowledge flows. Yet politicians are adept at ignoring these fundamental realities in favor of heated soundbites.
## 10. Why “America First” Misses the Mark
### 1. The Reality of Interdependence
AI labs in Silicon Valley and Shenzhen share code and ideas through open-source communities. An engineering marvel such as the iPhone is designed in California but manufactured in China. New drug therapies may emerge from a U.S. biotech startup but rely on Chinese contract research organizations (CROs) for crucial clinical trial data. It is neither feasible nor cost-effective to unravel these relationships overnight.
### 2. Talent Flows
Chinese nationals comprise a significant portion of graduate students in American STEM fields. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than 30 percent of U.S. doctoral graduates in engineering, mathematics, and computer science come from abroad, with a large proportion from China. Proposals that tighten visas in the name of national security risk stifling the very engine driving American research. The vacuum created by a sudden downturn in Chinese enrollment would be profound, not just in sheer numbers but in the quality of scholarly output and the cross-pollination of ideas.
### 3. Supply Chain Depth
Calls for a neat “decoupling” routinely ignore the engineering and manufacturing infrastructure that has grown in China for over three decades. From building motherboards for AI servers to synthesizing chemicals used in advanced drugs, Chinese factories have achieved efficiencies and economies of scale that would take years, if not decades, for American industry to replicate. Even with a massive investment in reshoring, any abrupt severing would cause severe disruptions that harm American businesses and consumers.
### 4. Global Markets
China is not only a supply-base but also a massive consumer market with a burgeoning middle class. Cutting ties with such a market would curtail revenue streams crucial for American companies in sectors ranging from automobiles to entertainment. This would, in turn, reduce the capital available for reinvestment in R&D, ironically weakening the innovative edge that America so prizes.
### 5. Shared Challenges
Perhaps the most compelling argument against “America First” is that the greatest challenges of our age—from pandemics and climate change to AI governance—require collaborative solutions. Pandemics do not respect borders; greenhouse gases disperse globally; unregulated AI can cause cross-border disruptions in finance, communication, and security. The synergy between American and Chinese researchers is indispensable in addressing these planetary-scale issues.
## 11. Examples of Critical U.S.-China Collaborations
To appreciate the scope of Sino-American cooperation, one can look at a few notable collaborations across AI, biotechnology, and genomics. While many projects operate below the media radar, their impact is both profound and wide-ranging:
1. **BGI Group and U.S. Institutions**
BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute) works with American universities like the University of Washington on precision medicine and genomic research.[3] These joint efforts leverage BGI’s formidable sequencing capabilities alongside top-tier American research expertise.
2. **Harvard’s George Church and the Institute of Regenesis**
George Church, a leading geneticist at Harvard Medical School, has collaborated with BGI to advance synthetic biology and regenerative medicine. These initiatives push the boundaries of what is medically possible, from organ regeneration to the creation of synthetic genomes.
3. **Global Virome Project**
The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance participated in a worldwide initiative to catalogue and study viruses, aiming to prevent future pandemics.[4] By pooling resources and data, both nations made strides toward protecting global public health.
4. **Stanford University and Chinese AI Institutions**
Joint research on natural language processing (NLP), computer vision, and robotics fosters breakthroughs that neither side could achieve in isolation. Collaborative AI projects often lead to highly cited papers, indicating cutting-edge research recognized globally.
5. **Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University**
Joint labs have tackled pioneering research in AI, robotics, and materials science, fueling patents and commercial products on both sides of the Pacific.[5] Additionally, student and faculty exchanges enrich academic cultures, promoting the cross-pollination of ideas.
6. **Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) and University of California, Davis**
Partnerships in agriculture and livestock genomics have led to improved crop varieties and enhanced understanding of disease resistance. This research directly impacts food security, a worldwide concern that transcends political boundaries.
7. **George Mason University and Chinese Energy Researchers**
AI-driven climate models analyzing pollution patterns in industrial centers highlight the necessity for shared environmental initiatives. By integrating American data analytics with Chinese on-the-ground observations, teams can better forecast and mitigate climate risks.
8. **U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Chinese Aging Research Centers**
Collaborative longevity biotechnology projects aim to develop biomarkers for healthy aging, bridging AI, pharmacology, and gerontology. The findings have global resonance, given the demographic shifts in both nations.
In each of these partnerships, the synergy is clear: American institutions supply engineering acumen, capital, and broad market reach; Chinese partners contribute manufacturing prowess, a vast talent pool, and a willingness to invest heavily in R&D. These examples illustrate that the lifeblood of modern science and technology is not zero-sum competition but an ever-evolving tapestry of collaborative networks.
## 12. Lessons from 20 Sino-American Research Collaborations
A meta-analysis of 20 prominent collaborations in AI, bioengineering, and genomics further illuminates the magnitude of this synergy. For instance, a study from Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI found that U.S.-China co-authorship in top AI journals produced research cited more frequently than purely domestic efforts.[6] Meanwhile, the National Science Review documented joint breakthroughs in synthetic genomics, underscoring the direct link between collaborative research and scientific innovation.[7]
The references underlying these partnerships highlight the following trends:
1. **Open-Source Ecosystems**: Multiple collaborations rely on open-source software for AI development, enabling rapid iteration and mutual learning.
2. **Biotech Scalability**: China’s manufacturing environment accelerates the translation of lab discoveries into scalable applications, benefiting American startups that cannot afford domestic scale-up costs.
3. **Precision Medicine**: Genomic data from diverse Chinese populations helps American researchers refine treatments that can be widely applied, an issue critical to addressing healthcare disparities.
4. **Data-Driven Insights**: Platforms like TikTok, WeChat, or American-based social apps generate troves of user data that can be dissected to improve AI models, benefiting both nations’ technology sectors.
5. **Global Health and Security**: Joint projects, such as the Global Virome Project, highlight how data sharing can preempt global crises.
At each juncture, the impetus is less about altruism and more about enlightened self-interest. The U.S. needs China’s capacity; China values America’s intellectual capital. Far from ideological synergy, this is practical synergy, yet it yields tangible and often life-saving outcomes.
## 13. Toward a More Nuanced Foreign Policy
“America First” thrives on painting international relations in broad strokes—friend or foe, winner or loser. Yet the Sino-American relationship cannot be reduced to good versus evil. It is a tapestry of competition and cooperation, shaped by simultaneous tensions and alliances. Rather than defaulting to disengagement, American policymakers can adopt a stance of *collaborative leadership* that recognizes legitimate security concerns without discarding the benefits of open research and commercial engagement.
### A. Invest in Domestic Talent and Infrastructure
The single most promising way for the United States to maintain global leadership is by bolstering its own educational and industrial bases. This includes investing heavily in K-12 STEM education, modernizing university research facilities, and providing immigration pathways for highly skilled workers. By reinforcing its internal strengths, the U.S. can participate in international networks from a position of confidence rather than fear.
### B. Strengthen Alliances
Decoupling from China need not preclude forging stronger ties with other global players. The United States can partner with nations such as the member states of the European Union, India, Japan, and Australia to diversify its collaborative portfolio. This approach also bolsters the resilience of supply chains without sacrificing global engagement.
### C. Emphasize Ethical Leadership
Areas like AI ethics, data privacy, and biotechnology governance require common frameworks. America can lead by collaborating with China and other nations in crafting international standards that promote transparency, fairness, and human well-being. Leadership here does not mean unilateral command; it means building coalitions to shape the rules of the technological game.
### D. Regulate, Don’t Decouple
Where genuine risks exist—such as potential IP theft or military misuse of dual-use tech—intelligent regulation can mitigate vulnerabilities. This might involve targeted export controls, stringent data protection laws, or more rigorous guidelines for research collaboration. Such measures provide a middle path between naive openness and counterproductive isolationism.
### E. Reframe “Competition”
Healthy competition in AI and biotech can spur innovations that benefit humanity at large. A competition that fosters leaps in clean energy, cures for diseases, or more robust AI safety protocols is desirable. The aim should be to channel the competitive drive into constructive arenas, ensuring that global synergy remains intact.
## 14. The Futility of Zero-Sum Thinking
A deep irony underpins the hyper-rhetoric directed against China: while politicians and pundits frame Sino-American relations as a zero-sum contest, the reality of integrated global systems defies that logic. Efforts to sabotage one side inevitably harm the other. Stricter visa regulations targeting Chinese students, for instance, risk depleting the U.S. talent pool. Tariffs intended to punish Chinese manufacturers can raise costs for American businesses and consumers. Moves to ban certain Chinese apps or hardware hamper American startups that depend on cross-platform tools.
Indeed, the impetus to exclude China from international organizations or joint ventures can backfire, motivating Beijing to establish parallel institutions. Instead of reinforcing American leadership, such moves can isolate the U.S. from critical discussions and standard-setting processes. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to engage with China’s gargantuan market, leaving Americans at a disadvantage. In other words, in an era where wealth creation, research, and technological advancement are co-produced, scorched-earth policies harm all parties involved.
## 15. AI, Bioengineering, and the Future of Humanity
Few fields illustrate our shared fate more vividly than biotechnology and AI. Consider the existential challenges that loom: novel pathogens, climate emergencies, or even the ethical dilemmas posed by artificial superintelligence. Addressing these issues demands an unprecedented level of international solidarity. AI safety research—aimed at preventing the emergence of harmful autonomous systems—requires broad consensus and data sharing across laboratories worldwide. Bioengineering breakthroughs that promise personalized medicine must rely on genetic data sets that encompass the full spectrum of human diversity.
A model of indefinite decoupling from China would be akin to setting up scientific fortresses, each cut off from the others. Such an environment hampers the free flow of ideas and data essential for accelerating breakthroughs. While competition can catalyze innovation, it is ultimately cooperation that propels the kind of expansive progress that secures the future of our species. Under these conditions, the reductive emphasis on “America First” not only diminishes the United States’ standing but also imperils global advancement.
## 16. Conclusion: Beyond Absurdity, Toward Real Leadership
“America First” is an anachronistic relic that appeals powerfully to those yearning for a bygone era—one where American factories roared with productivity, immigration was more tightly controlled, and global institutions had not yet matured into their current complexity. But that past no longer exists, and wishing it back through slogans solves nothing. Today’s reality is defined by integrated systems in finance, technology, and academia that weave nations together, particularly the United States and China.
The hyper-rhetoric surrounding China seeks to hide or downplay this interdependence, exploiting legitimate concerns—such as national security, human rights, and fair trade—for political gain. In doing so, it fosters a societal misperception of an implacable foreign adversary set on supplanting American global leadership. Yet behind the curtain of political theater, American universities, tech firms, and research consortia are more reliant on Chinese expertise, data, and capacity than ever before. Moreover, the reverse is equally true: China’s aspirations for technological preeminence rely on American collaborations and markets.
Instead of doubling down on isolating slogans, the U.S. can best serve its long-term interests by recognizing that genuine leadership is forged in forging alliances, shaping ethical standards, and out-competing through excellence rather than exclusion. The rightful successor to “America First” is not an act of self-abnegation or a diminishing of American power; it is a refocused, collaborative leadership that harnesses the strengths of a multipolar world. In this world, the United States remains a beacon of scientific innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and ethical governance—precisely because it embraces global partnerships that amplify, rather than undercut, its influence.
To paraphrase a point often lost in heated debates: decoupling from China is not only impractical; it is harmful. The next generation of cures, climate solutions, and AI safety protocols depends on the synergy between diverse minds and resources. Clinging to the “America First” mantra is thus an act of willful blindness, as though ignoring the cables that connect our economies and labs will somehow make us safer or more prosperous.
Ultimately, America’s “greatness” can indeed flourish, but only when it wields the humility to acknowledge that innovation in the 21st century is a collective endeavor. Every cutting-edge development in AI, every lifesaving medication, every step toward mitigating climate change—these are intrinsically the products of global networks. By accepting that we rise together, America can transcend the zero-sum illusions that stoke divisive politics. This approach clarifies what real leadership looks like in a shared, complex, and vulnerable world: not isolation, but aspiration—tempered by cooperation, grounded in ethical responsibility, and open to the boundless possibilities of cross-border collaboration.
## [Crawling Through the Sewage Pipe of Nationalism: America’s Shawshank Redemption Toward a New Global Order](https://xentities.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-duality-of-rhetoric-and-action-in.html)
### References (Selected)
1. HAI Policy White Paper: Enhancing International Cooperation in AI Research. Stanford University, 2022.
2. “BGI Group and U.S. Institutions.” [University of Washington Collaborative Projects](https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-China-and-Medical-AI-Implications-of-Big-Biodata-for-the-Bioeconomy.pdf).
3. “Synthetic Genomics and Biotechnology,” *National Science Review* (2024).
4. Global Virome Project: [EcoHealth Alliance](https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa252/38882573/nwaa252.pdf).
5. “MIT-Tsinghua University Joint Projects,” *Sage Journals* (2022).
6. HAI Policy White Paper: Enhancing International Cooperation in AI Research. Stanford University, 2022.
7. “China and Medical AI: Implications of Big Biodata for the Bioeconomy,” [CSET](https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-China-and-Medical-AI-Implications-of-Big-Biodata-for-the-Bioeconomy.pdf).
Posts
0 Comments