In 2025, under President Donald J. Trump’s second administration, U.S.–China relations have entered a new phase of strategic rivalry often characterized as “Technology War 2.0.” Rather than pure containment or decoupling, Washington has signaled a willingness to engage Beijing in what Trump and some advisors describe as a “G2 negotiation”—a bilateral negotiation framework that recognizes the United States and China as the two dominant powers shaping the global order. This approach aims to manage the technology competition through negotiation rather than outright confrontation. This brief examines the contours of the “G2” concept, assesses its strategic logic and risks, and outlines policy implications for U.S. allies and the broader international community.
Origins and Recent Uptick of the “G2” Concept
The term “G2” originally referred to a theoretical U.S.–China partnership in which the two largest economies would jointly influence global governance. It was first proposed in the early 2000s by U.S. scholars as a way to institutionalize U.S.–China cooperation in the post‑Cold War era. In late 2025, President Trump invoked the term publicly following a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, labeling their discussions a “G2 meeting.” This revived concept aims to signal a potential negotiated accommodation with China on key issues, especially technology competition and trade relations.
Reports from analytical circles describe this move as more than rhetorical; analysts note that the Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy refrains from categorizing China as an outright existential threat, but rather as a competitor with which negotiation is preferable to escalatory conflict.
Technology War 2.0: From Decoupling to Negotiated Management
“Technology War 2.0” reflects a shift in the U.S.–China technology competition:
In earlier phases (e.g., the 2018–2021 trade war and export controls), the United States emphasized unilateral restrictions on Chinese access to advanced semiconductors and other high‑end technology as non‑negotiable national security controls.
In 2025, however, Beijing’s strategic leverage—particularly through restrictions on critical minerals and intermediate components essential for global industries—has pressured Washington to recalibrate its stance toward negotiated bargaining, potentially under a G2 framework.
This evolution does not imply cooperation in the traditional sense, but rather “managed competition” in which both sides seek to contain volatility while preserving core national interests. Some analysts characterize this as a new equilibrium of controlled tension rather than confrontation or detente.
Strategic Logic and Domestic Drivers
Several dynamic forces explain the Trump administration’s interest in negotiating with China:
Economic pressures: Broad protectionist policies and high tariffs earlier in 2025 have strained U.S. industry, encouraging political leadership to explore negotiated trade adjustments.
Geopolitical signaling: Branding bilateral talks as “G2” asserts American primacy while implicitly acknowledging China’s status as a strategic partner or competitor that cannot be isolated.
Domestic political context: Republican policymakers have shown both nationalist pressure to restrict technology transfer and pragmatic recognition of deep supply chain interdependencies with China.
Although the phrase “G2” has been embraced in some U.S. political and media circles as a symbol of bilateral leadership, many analysts note that China has not formally endorsed the concept and often emphasizes its preference for multilateral governance frameworks under the UN and World Trade Organization (WTO) systems.
Risks and Critiques of a G2 Framework
The idea of a U.S.–China negotiated order carries several significant risks:
Legitimacy and Alliance Strain: A bilateral “G2” accommodation may marginalize U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and the Indo‑Pacific who see their security and economic interests shaped by Beijing and Washington alike. This could weaken alliance cohesion at a time when technology standards and export control regimes are being contested.
Perceived Hegemony or Accommodation: In China, the notion of “G2” has been met with skepticism; some observers assert that it reflects American hegemonic thinking rather than genuine partnership, since shared governance rights without shared values can undermine China’s commitment to multilateral norms.
Regulatory and Security Gaps: A negotiated technology compact could inadvertently relax export controls on certain advanced technologies, potentially weakening safeguards on critical infrastructure and dual‑use technologies if not carefully structured.
Implications for Global Technology Governance
The Trump‑era “G2 negotiation” approach could reshape the international technology landscape:
Export Controls: Shifts toward negotiation might lead to bilateral agreements on semiconductor exports, AI governance, and supply chain resilience, potentially influencing U.S. allies’ regulatory frameworks.
Standard Setting: A negotiated U.S.–China understanding could prefigure new global standards for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and cybersecurity norms.
Multilateral Institutions: The G2 model risks sidelining broader multilateral fora like the WTO and G20 in favor of U.S.–China bilateralism, with attendant questions about fairness and representation.
Conclusion
“Technology War 2.0” under the Trump administration’s emerging “G2 negotiation” rhetoric represents a potential inflection point in the U.S.–China strategic and technological competition. While shifting toward negotiation may reduce some bilateral tensions, it introduces new complexities in alliance cohesion, technology governance, and global norms. A strategic approach that integrates bilateral dialogue with robust multilateral engagement and allied coordination is essential to manage competition while maintaining stability in the international technology order.
Tags：Technology War 2.0；U.S.–China Relations；G2 Negotiation；Global Technology Governance
Leave a Reply