Digital technology races between China and the US: a critical media analysis of US media coverage of China’s rise in technology and globalization

4.3.1 Codebook

For the content analysis, the study adopted a quantitative approach. Articles were coded based on specific variables, such as report stance and report frame. The coding process involved classifying each article according to predefined themes, as outlined in the codebook (Table 1). Each theme was assigned a code, such as threat frame or competition frame. This table provided a clear quantitative representation of the key thematic elements in the analyzed articles. The content was categorized into several thematic areas: technological innovation, market competition, national security, geopolitics, and ethics. Each article was analyzed for language use, tone (positive, negative, or neutral), and emotional inclination. A keyword analysis was focused on terms such as threat, national security, and competition to uncover potential political biases in the media coverage. A comparative analysis was identified differences in how each newspaper frames China’s technological rise, offering insights into their respective stances on the issue.

4.3.2 Descriptive statistics

Additionally, this study employed quantitative analysis to examine the changes over time in the number and percentage of reporting attitudes toward China-related digital technology. Chi-square tests of independence was conducted to evaluate whether the distribution of reporting stances (positive, neutral, and negative) in The New York Times (Table 2) and The Wall Street Journal (Table 3), and exhibited significant variation over the period from 2016 to 2020.

In Table 2, a chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether the distribution of reporting stances in The New York Times exhibited significant variation over the years. The test result (χ ² = 15.10, df = 8, p = 0.057) suggests that these differences are close to the conventional 5 % significance threshold, indicating a marginally significant temporal variation. Specifically, the data reveal a general decline in the proportion of positive reporting on China’s technological development from 2016 to 2018, followed by stabilization at a relatively low level. In addition, the proportion of neutral reporting gradually increased over the five-year period, suggesting a tendency toward more moderate and balanced coverage, while negative reporting initially rose but showed signs of decline in the final year. In Table 3, a chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether the distribution of reporting stances in The Wall Street Journal exhibited significant variation over time. The test result (χ ²  = 12.37, df = 8, p = 0.136) indicates that the observed fluctuations in stance proportions across different years are not statistically significant at the 5 % level. While the data show a gradual increase in neutral reporting and a decrease in negative reporting after a slight rise in 2017, as well as a reduction in positive reporting from 2018 onwards, these changes are modest in magnitude. Therefore, the variations are more likely attributable to random fluctuations rather than reflecting a consistent or systematic temporal shift in reporting stance.

Additionally, this study presented the frequency and percentage analysis and further quantified the frequency of thematic elements, such as national security and technological competition, which would help clarify the extent of coverage for each theme (Table 4) and framework sponsor (Table 5).

In Table 4, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine whether the distribution of reporting frames (threat, competition, cooperation, and confrontation) differed significantly between The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The test result (χ ² = 75.41, df = 3, p < 0.001) indicates a highly significant difference in the use of reporting frames between the two newspapers. This finding suggests that the two outlets adopt distinct framing strategies in their coverage of China-related digital technology issues, with The Wall Street Journal demonstrating a stronger tendency toward competition framing, while The New York Times shows a relatively higher prevalence of threat and confrontation frames.

In Table 5, a chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in the distribution of framework sponsors between The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between the two media outlets (χ ² = 59.42, df = 6, p < 0.001). This indicates that the two newspapers exhibit distinct patterns in their selection of framework sponsors, with notable variations in the frequencies of government, corporate, expert, public, non-governmental, mainstream media, and uncertain sources cited in their coverage of China-related digital technology issues.

The quantitative results were presented in following tables, which analyzed the thematic distribution within each reporting frame category for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, including threat frame (Table 6), competition frame (Table 7), cooperation frame (Table 8), and confrontation frame (Table 9).

For the threat framework (Table 6), the test result (χ ² = 2.94, df = 4, p = 0.568) indicates no statistically significant difference between the two newspapers, suggesting that both outlets adopt similar patterns in the themes of threat-related reporting.

In contrast, for the competition framework (Table 7), a significant difference was found (χ ² = 36.08, df = 1, p < 0.001), indicating that the two newspapers display distinct preferences in their competitive framing. The Wall Street Journal places greater emphasis on free market competition among multinational companies, while The New York Times focuses more on digital technology competition.

For the cooperation framework (Table 8), no significant difference was detected (χ ² = 5.70, df = 3, p = 0.127), suggesting that the thematic choices within the cooperation frame are relatively consistent between the two newspapers.

However, for the confrontation framework (Table 9), the chi-square test revealed a statistically significant difference (χ ² = 12.58, df = 1, p < 0.001). This result demonstrates that the two media outlets differ notably in their confrontation framing, with The Wall Street Journal focusing more heavily on Sino-U.S. trade friction and The New York Times emphasizing both trade friction and digital technology confrontation more evenly.

According to the tables, which highlight significant differences between The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal in framing China’s digital technology. The Wall Street Journal predominantly employs an economic competition frame, emphasizing market competition and corporate rivalry, whereas The New York Times frequently adopts an ethical and security frame, focusing on national cybersecurity, surveillance, and privacy risks. Negative reports, though fewer in number, tend to have longer word counts and cite more diverse sources, making them more influential in shaping public discourse. While neutral articles dominate in quantity, their framing often reflects implicit biases – The New York Times leans toward government surveillance narratives, whereas The Wall Street Journal focuses on market competition concerns. Moreover, key issue areas, such as national security and technological dominance, show statistically significant differences between the two outlets, with The New York Times emphasizing threat-based narratives and The Wall Street Journal highlighting China’s challenge to U.S. economic supremacy. These findings demonstrate how media framing aligns with geopolitical and economic interests, shaping American public perceptions of China’s digital technology. Additionally, they heavily rely on institutional sources, with government and corporate entities being the most frequently cited (35.4 % and 37.5 % in NYT; 27.5 % and 48.3 % in WSJ), subtly reinforcing dominant narratives. The framing of neutral reports also differs between the two newspapers – The New York Times incorporates critical background analysis that emphasizes cybersecurity and privacy concerns, while The Wall Street Journal focuses more on economic implications and corporate competition, maintaining a market-driven perspective. Although neutral reports dominate in quantity, negative reports tend to be more influential due to their longer length, diverse sources, and stronger framing strategies. Negative coverage is more likely to cite experts and scholars (12.8 % in NYT vs. 6.8 % in WSJ) and emphasize themes related to national security threats and economic confrontation. This suggests that even though neutral reports appear more balanced, they still contribute to agenda-setting by determining which topics receive attention and how they are framed. As a result, neutral coverage functions as a strategic tool for shaping public perceptions, subtly reinforcing broader geopolitical narratives about China’s digital technology and Sino-U.S. technological competition.

5.1.1 Technology transfer and intellectual property protection

Palmer (2019) reported that “The Trump administration has escalated its warnings about China’s rapid technological advancements, calling them a ‘fundamental threat’ to U.S. national security. Senior White House officials, including President Donald J. Trump, argued that Beijing’s push for dominance in artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and semiconductor manufacturing could undermine American economic and military superiority. ‘China is not just competing; they are playing by different rules to overtake us,’ said a top national security adviser.” Consequently, they implemented restrictions on the sale of U.S. technology to foreign countries.

5.1.2 Information security protection

While technological advancements offer significant convenience, they also introduce critical security challenges, including threats to national information security and the protection of citizens’ personal privacy.

5.1.3 Critical discourse analysis: China’s Adups software “Threatens” the personal information security of U.S. citizens

Apuzzo and Schmidt (2016) reported that “Security researchers have identified pre-installed software on certain Android smartphones that secretly collects and transmits user data to servers in China. The software, developed by Shanghai-based Adups Technology, has been flagged as a potential security risk, raising concerns about consumer privacy. ‘This is a serious case of unauthorized data collection, where personal messages, call logs, and location data were transmitted without user consent,’ said a cybersecurity expert familiar with the issue. U.S. officials have warned that such vulnerabilities could pose broader national security risks.” The New York Times reported on the Chinese Adups software, describing it as a “threat” to the personal information security of U.S. citizens. The coverage primarily centered around the positions of various stakeholders, including the U.S. government, U.S. companies (such as phone manufacturer BLU Products and security firm Kryptowire), the Chinese company Adups Technology, and Chinese experts (notably Adups’ legal representatives). The study reveals intense verbal disputes among these parties regarding the implications of the software.

Mozur (2016): “U.S. security experts have identified Adups software, pre-installed on Android phones, as a serious threat to personal information security, warning that it collects sensitive data such as text messages, contact lists, and location information. U.S. companies like BLU Products have removed the software’s data-collecting feature, but experts remain concerned about its potential to send data to servers in China. The U.S. government claims that this software is part of China’s broader strategy to gather intelligence, while Adups denies any affiliation with the Chinese government, asserting that the software serves legitimate purposes like identifying spam calls for Chinese consumers.”

The report highlights that U.S. security experts identified pre-installed software on Android phones capable of accessing users’ personal information. The U.S. government alleged that the Adups software was designed to enable the Chinese government to gather intelligence, a claim echoed and elaborated upon by U.S. companies. BLU Products stated that it had removed the data-collecting feature of the Adups software, while Kryptowire, the security company that discovered the vulnerability, warned that the software could transmit data such as text messages, contact lists, call logs, and location information to servers in China. Kryptowire Vice President Tom Karygiannis stated, “The Adups software is pre-installed on phones, and users are not informed of its monitoring activities.” In contrast, Adups’ lawyer, Lily Lim, rejected these allegations, asserting, “Adups is not affiliated with the Chinese government.” Adups further clarified that the software’s purpose was to fulfill functions requested by phone distributors, specifically to help Chinese customers identify spam calls and messages. Adups argued that the responsibility to disclose privacy policies rested with phone manufacturers, not the software provider.

The core narrative of the report revolves around the perceived threat to U.S. citizens’ information security. U.S. companies were the primary proponents of this perspective, with support from the U.S. government and mainstream media. Together, they reinforced the “China Threat Theory,” positing that Adups software was a tool for the Chinese government to collect personal data from U.S. citizens, thereby posing a significant threat to national information security.

Conversely, Chinese experts and companies countered these claims, advocating for free market competition and denying the connection between Adups software and the Chinese government. Adups positioned itself as a provider of legitimate services unrelated to espionage, challenging the “China Threat Theory”. The report reflects an “America First” stance, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding national sovereignty and protecting citizens’ information security. While U.S. companies and the government framed the issue as a significant security threat, Chinese stakeholders focused on defending their role in the global technology market and denying political affiliations.

While The New York Times emphasizes the potential social risks and ethical challenges posed by China’s technological advances, The Wall Street Journal focuses on the economic and competitive aspects, portraying China’s rise as a direct challenge to U.S. economic leadership and market control. This distinction is reflected in the tone, word choice and focus of the articles, providing a clearer understanding of how each newspaper constructs the narrative around China’s technological progress.

5.2.1 Digital technology competition

Ross (2017) reported that “China’s industrial ambitions have entered a new phase, with Beijing ramping up efforts to achieve technological self-sufficiency. By leveraging substantial state subsidies and a rapidly advancing domestic tech sector, the Chinese government is reducing its dependence on foreign companies, particularly in critical industries such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications. ‘China is no longer just a manufacturing hub – it is now positioning itself as a global leader in next-generation technologies,’ said a senior policy analyst specializing in U.S.-China economic relations.” The New York Times reported that China’s industrial ambitions have reached a new phase, aiming to leverage its substantial government financial resources and increasingly advanced technologies to reduce its reliance on foreign companies. To regain its position of international leadership, the United States has implemented comprehensive policies and initiated a prolonged and intense competition with China.

5.2.2 Free market competition

Tejada and Russell (2018) “Mainstream American media have highlighted the growing risks posed by China’s rapid digital expansion, especially as Beijing emerges as a key player in global technology markets. ‘China’s push to dominate emerging technologies like 5G and artificial intelligence is a clear challenge to U.S. economic supremacy,’ said a policy expert. This growing technological competition is fueling fears that China could shift global markets in its favor, threatening the economic future of the United States.” It believes that China’s digital technology is endangering the economic future of the United States. The digital technology competition between China and the United States may become another flashpoint between the world’s two largest economies.

Tankersley and Swanson (2019) reported that “As Washington pushes for the liberalization of global markets to strengthen American businesses, Beijing is taking a different approach – bolstering its domestic tech giants through state-backed funding and regulatory advantages. ‘China’s strategy prioritizes national champions, ensuring companies like Huawei and Alibaba gain a competitive edge both domestically and globally,’ said a U.S. trade official. Meanwhile, American firms face growing barriers in China’s tightly controlled digital economy, raising concerns over fair competition.” It reported that while Washington is urging the opening of global markets to promote the development of American companies, China is promoting the development of local giants. From 1995 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of U.S. national R&D revenue was only 3 %. The free market economy is one of the important pillars of American society. However, the U.S. government believes that if the market continues to operate freely, other countries will benefit from it, causing U.S. interests to be harmed. Therefore, the U.S. government continues to intervene in the free market and successively introduces relevant bills.

Although The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal frequently highlight the interconnectivity of technology in their coverage of global advancements, their reporting on China’s technological progress often shifts the focus to the potential threats posed by China’s rise to the United States. Within the narrative framework of U.S. media, particularly in technology reporting, globalization is frequently interpreted as a competition between nations. China’s achievements in areas such as 5G technology and artificial intelligence are commonly framed as challenges to U.S. technological dominance.

This reporting pattern reveals a double standard in U.S. mainstream media’s depiction of globalization. On one hand, globalization is presented as a driver of technological exchange and innovation; on the other hand, when global competition appears to undermine U.S. interests, globalization is reframed as a national security threat.

5.2.3 Critical discourse analysis: the new frontline in the U.S.-China struggle – undersea cables

Rosett (2020) reported that “The competition between the United States and China over technological dominance has expanded to undersea cables, a critical component of global digital infrastructure. As Huawei Marine increases its presence in deploying these networks, U.S. officials warn of potential security risks. “These cables are the backbone of global communications, and China’s growing involvement raises serious intelligence and security concerns,” said a senior U.S. defense official. Australian security officials have also voiced apprehensions, citing risks of foreign interference and potential threats to national sovereignty. In response, Washington is collaborating with allies to curb Beijing’s influence in this strategic sector.” The discourse primarily involved contributions from the U.S. government, mainstream U.S. media (The Wall Street Journal), Chinese companies (Huawei), and other national governments (e.g., Australian security officials). An analysis of the interactions among these contributors reveals ongoing verbal confrontations centered on control over global digital technology networks.

Tankersley and Swanson (2019) reported that “China’s growing involvement in undersea cable infrastructure has raised significant concerns within the U.S. government about potential threats to national security. The U.S. has refused to adopt Huawei’s mobile networks, fearing that China’s advances in digital technology could undermine the U.S.’s dominance in global internet infrastructure. William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, stated, ‘China has used undersea cables to pose a threat to the counterintelligence security of other countries.’ Meanwhile, Huawei’s spokesperson Joe Kelly denied these allegations, asserting that the company has never been asked by any government to engage in activities threatening the security of other nations.”

The U.S. government has framed China’s involvement in undersea cable infrastructure as a significant threat to U.S. security, refusing to adopt Huawei’s mobile networks. The Wall Street Journal echoed this perspective, arguing that China’s rapid advancements in digital technology undermine the U.S.’s dominance in global internet infrastructure. William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, asserted that “China has used undersea cables to pose a threat to the counterintelligence security of other countries.”

In contrast, Huawei, through spokesperson Joe Kelly, denied these accusations, stating that the company “has never been asked by any government to carry out actions threatening the security of other countries.” Additionally, an Australian security official claimed that China had embedded security vulnerabilities into undersea cables, a claim Huawei also rejected, offering to make its products available for inspection by any security expert or government agency.

The central narrative of the report frames China’s digital technology as a threat to U.S. national security, with the U.S. government as the primary driver of this narrative. Mainstream U.S. media and other national governments reinforce this position, whereas Chinese companies present a counter-narrative. The U.S. government emerges as the principal advocate of the “threat” perspective, with mainstream media, Chinese entities, and international actors playing supporting roles in amplifying or contesting these claims.

Overall, the report reflects a U.S.-centric stance aimed at maintaining national sovereignty and technological hegemony. It underscores the importance of protecting national interests and securing digital infrastructure within the broader global context.

5.3.1 Technical cooperation

Apple has established its first data center in China, aligning with other technology companies in addressing the increasing global demand for online data storage facilities tailored to local customer needs. Bradsher and Mozur (2017) reported that “Apple has set up its first data center in China, joining other global tech firms in adapting to Beijing’s data localization requirements. The company now stores certain data of Chinese residents on local servers, with data center operations and service management handled within China. Critics warn that such moves, while ensuring compliance with Chinese regulations, may raise concerns over data access and government oversight.”

5.3.2 Strategic cooperation

Mozur (2017) reported that “U.S. technology giants IBM and AMD have entered agreements to license advanced chip technology to Chinese firms, some of which have reported links to China’s military. The deals, aimed at expanding market access in China, have raised concerns among U.S. officials over potential national security risks. ‘These partnerships could inadvertently strengthen China’s military capabilities by granting access to cutting-edge semiconductor technology,’ said a former Pentagon official.” It reported that US companies IBM and AMD have licensed chip technology to Chinese partners with ties to the Chinese military. In addition, Rosett (2020) reported that “As Washington moves to tighten restrictions on data flows to Beijing, the United Nations Secretariat is deepening its collaboration with China on global data initiatives. A new joint data center in Hangzhou, developed in partnership with Beijing, is set to process UN data while also showcasing China’s advancements in satellite surveillance. ‘This partnership underscores China’s growing influence in global data governance,’ said a cybersecurity expert familiar with the project.”

5.3.3 Critical discourse analysis: U.S. digital technology achievements shared with the U.S. government in the U.S.-China digital technology dispute

Tugend (2018) reported that “Amid rising tensions over digital technology, the U.S. government has intensified scrutiny over the sharing of American technological advancements with China. Officials warn that unrestricted access to cutting-edge innovations could give Beijing a strategic edge in critical sectors like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. ‘Safeguarding U.S. digital technology is essential to maintaining national security and economic leadership,’ said a senior administration official.” The discourse primarily involved contributions from The New York Times, U.S. companies (such as Microsoft, Spell, and Foursquare), and the U.S. government. An analysis of the interactions among these contributors reveals ongoing verbal reinforcement and alignment of perspectives.

Kang and Rappeport (2018): “In the ongoing U.S.-China digital technology dispute, U.S. companies, including Microsoft, Spell, and Foursquare, have highlighted the importance of sharing technological advancements with the U.S. government. Microsoft’s Executive Vice President of Business Development, Peggy Johnson, stressed the need for U.S. companies to determine when and how to share their innovations, especially for military applications. ‘The confrontation between the U.S. and China in the digital realm is serious,’ Johnson said, adding that government involvement is crucial in advancing U.S. digital technology. Similarly, Serkan Piantino, CEO of AI company Spell, argued that the U.S. should impose reasonable restrictions on digital technology to protect national interests. Dennis Crowley, Co-founder of Foursquare, mentioned that the company regularly discusses digital security and ethical concerns when making business decisions.”

The New York Times argued that, in the context of the U.S.-China digital technology rivalry, the United States should continue advancing its digital technologies while sharing technological achievements with the government. Microsoft supported this viewpoint, with Peggy Johnson, Executive Vice President of Business Development at Microsoft, highlighting the seriousness of the growing confrontation between the U.S. and China in the digital technology domain. She emphasized the importance for U.S. high-tech companies to decide when and how to share their technological advancements with the government, particularly for military applications.

AI companies Spell and Foursquare added to the discourse by stressing the need to impose reasonable restrictions on digital technology. Serkan Piantino, Founder and CEO of Spell, stated, “The U.S. should impose restrictions on digital technology.” Similarly, Dennis Crowley, Co-founder and Executive Chairman of Foursquare, noted that the company engages in internal discussions about ethics and digital technology security before making business decisions.

The central perspective of the report is one of confrontation, with U.S. companies serving as the primary advocates. Mainstream American media supports the position of U.S. companies, emphasizing the necessity of government intervention in digital technology development. U.S. companies, as key proponents, advocate for the dominance of U.S. digital technology, stressing that technological progress should include government participation and regulation. Meanwhile, mainstream U.S. media highlights the competitive dimension of the U.S.-China digital technology rivalry.

This report reflects a broader global stance centered on maintaining the world military order, promoting a new Cold War mentality, and supporting free market competition. The shift of U.S. companies from advocating for free market principles to endorsing digital technology hegemony demonstrates a double standard in the U.S. approach to digital technology. While advocating for free competition in global markets, the United States simultaneously uses the protection of its own digital technology as a justification to suppress leading technological products from other countries.

5.4.1 Meeting China’s challenge

Henning (2019) reported that “Huawei has traditionally been cautious in leveraging its intellectual property, but the intensifying U.S.-China technological rivalry is pushing both nations toward a more hardline stance. As trade tensions escalate, Huawei has signaled a shift in strategy, asserting its patent rights more aggressively in global markets. ‘The current geopolitical climate is forcing companies to rethink how they protect and enforce their intellectual property,’ said a technology analyst tracking the dispute.” Although Huawei has historically taken limited actions to capitalize on its intellectual property, the current competitive technological landscape and escalating Sino-U.S. trade tensions suggest that both countries have adopted a more uncompromising approach. The U.S. government believes that the rapid development of China’s digital technology poses a huge challenge to the U.S. economy and global liberal and democratic values.

5.4.2 Competing for digital technology leadership

Wong (2019) reported that “China’s growing military presence in the Western Pacific has raised concerns among U.S. officials and defense analysts, who argue that Beijing is positioning itself as a direct challenger to American dominance in the region. As an authoritarian state with increasing military investments, China has expanded its naval reach and modernized its forces to project power beyond its immediate borders. ‘This is not just about regional security – it’s about Beijing’s long-term strategy to reshape the balance of power,’ said a senior U.S. defense official.” The mainstream American media believes that China is an authoritarian country which is very likely to try to replace the United States’ military dominance in the Western Pacific. In the digital technology competition between China and the United States, the latter launched a trade war against China and intensified.

6.2.1 Digital technology competition

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. State Department developed and released the National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies in 2020, building upon the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy report. This strategy reflects the “America First” policy orientation, emphasizing the alignment of technological and national strategies. It identified 20 key emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, human-machine interfaces, communications and network technology, and space technology, outlining two primary goals: strengthening the foundation of national security innovation and maintaining the United States’ digital technology advantages. The strategy explicitly positioned China as a strategic competitor, asserting that China’s practices of technology theft and forced disclosure of intellectual property by foreign companies pose significant threats to the United States and its allies.

Following the transition to the Biden administration, most of the Trump administration’s policies aimed at curbing China’s technological innovation capabilities were retained. The Biden administration continued the strategic competition with China, prioritizing technological rivalry as a central element of U.S. strategic competition. The focus remains on suppressing China’s capabilities in emerging technological innovations, particularly those associated with Chinese high-tech companies, which the United States views as industrial challengers.

In the future, national security considerations are expected to dominate U.S. policies targeting Chinese companies operating in its jurisdiction. The National Security Strategy Interim Guidance explicitly places technological innovation at the core of U.S. national strategy, underscoring the importance of maintaining scientific and technological leadership to address both domestic and international challenges.

6.2.2 Free market competition

The Biden administration has maintained the Trump administration’s characterization of China as a long-term strategic and economic competitor to the United States. This positioning underscores the enduring nature of the competitive relationship between the two nations. President Biden stated, “China is a competitor that poses a serious challenge to U.S. prosperity, security, and democratic values,” emphasizing that Sino-U.S. relations are defined by “extreme competition.” Similarly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken described relations with China as “the biggest geopolitical test facing the United States in the 21st century.”

On May 27, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the American Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, a comprehensive and detailed legislative strategy targeting competition with China. The bill mentions China numerous times and, under the guise of promoting innovation, seeks to counter China’s advancements. In practice, it perpetuates the “China threat theory” in the realm of science and technology. Many of the policy measures outlined in the bill are explicitly described as “specific measures to deal with China,” signaling the formal initiation of a systematic approach to containing China through legislative means. This approach represents a departure from the principles of a free market economy, reflecting a broader U.S. strategy of legislative containment aimed at curbing China’s technological and economic rise.

6.3.1 Technology transfer and intellectual property protection

The U.S. government has identified China’s commercial and academic espionage activities, intellectual property theft, data security breaches, and forced technology transfers as significant threats to national interests. In response to these concerns, the United States has introduced comprehensive measures to strengthen its national information security infrastructure, enacted relevant policies, and adopted actions to counter the challenges posed by China’s digital technology. While the United States publicly advocates for a liberal trading system, its policies reflect a strategic approach to safeguarding its economic and technological interests.

The imposition of additional tariffs on approximately $50 billion worth of Chinese exports in 2018, specifically targeting high-tech industries, including next-generation information technology, industrial robotics, and new energy vehicles, serves as one example of the U.S. efforts to mitigate the technological rise of China. These tariffs aimed to reduce the U.S.-China trade deficit, implement trade protections, and slow down China’s industrial upgrading and technological innovation.

Further legislative measures, such as the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 and the American Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, reinforce these efforts by countering China’s predatory international economic practices and tracking intellectual property violations.

6.3.2 Information security protection

In the early days of Donald Trump’s administration, several initiatives were introduced to strengthen U.S. cybersecurity and address emerging global threats. Trump announced the establishment of the American Technology Council, signed an executive order on Enhancing the Cybersecurity of Federal Government Networks and Critical Infrastructure, and directed federal agencies to develop strategies for international cooperation in cybersecurity.

The U.S. National Security Strategy Report issued in 2017 further underscored a critical stance on China, with accusations against Chinese government and private sectors for engaging in intellectual property theft, challenging American power, and undermining U.S. security. This report defined China as a strategic competitor, a label that was later upgraded to that of a “rival state” by the Trump administration, explicitly emphasizing the competition between the two nations.

Under the Biden administration, while the focus on countering China’s influence persisted, the cybersecurity and technology-related policies have continued to evolve. The Biden administration has enacted several measures targeting Chinese technology and telecommunications, such as excluding Chinese telecommunications equipment from U.S. networks and advocating for the removal of Chinese apps, including TikTok, from U.S. app stores.

6.3.3 Personal information security

The U.S. government has become increasingly concerned about the personal information security of its citizens and has actively implemented various measures to address these threats. In June 2021, the U.S. government introduced the Cybersecurity Literacy Act to raise awareness and enhance the cyber literacy of American citizens, addressing cyber threats and promoting secure online practices. The act’s primary objectives are to improve the cybersecurity infrastructure of the United States while safeguarding citizens from foreign threats and cybercriminals.

7.1.1 Free market competition

The digital technology competition between China and the United States has a significant impact on the global market economy. This study finds that the globalization stance reflected in the competitive framework of mainstream U.S. media coverage on China-related digital technology is rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, which rejects state-centrism, is highly aggressive and emphasizes the diversified development of international actors. It reshapes the production systems, labor processes, inputs and outputs of digital technology, and influences the global division of labor, employment systems, consumption patterns, and other social forms.

The development of digital technology facilitates free competition in the global market, breaking the previously established dominance where only capital from developed countries could achieve free flow and competition on a global scale. From an international perspective, multinational corporations drive the shift in international relations from an inter-state political paradigm to a global political paradigm. Due to their “denationalized” and “depoliticized” nature, multinational companies do not rely on national government policies. They operate beyond national borders, obscuring their political affiliations and often separating their headquarters from their various business locations. As a result, multinational corporations prioritize maximizing profits rather than advancing national interests, competing freely on a global scale.

7.1.2 Ill-free market competition

With the rise of opposition to neoliberalism, digital technology has become one of the key indicators for measuring the economic development of countries. The concept of technological sovereignty, which originates from “techno-nationalism”, stands in opposition to “techno-globalism”, a concept shaped by neoliberal globalization theory. This shift reflects the “national security anxiety” present in the context of intense national competition. Neoliberalism applies double standards to developed and developing countries. On the one hand, it expands the space for capitalist development, while on the other hand, it generates contradictions and crises within the global capitalist system. This exacerbates the polarization between developed and developing nations, fueling opposition to neoliberalism. As a result, there is a growing demand for the localization of digital technology within countries. However, countries continue to control their own multinational digital technology companies and suppress foreign competitors.

Furthermore, in recent years, the business practices of multinational companies have increasingly become unfree. These corporations have secured excessive profits by exploiting various unregulated powers, yet the incomes of people in different countries have not seen significant increases. This widening gap between developed and developing countries accelerates the rise of trade protectionism and economic populism. To safeguard their national security and economic interests, countries have erected trade barriers, initiated anti-dumping investigations, imposed additional tariffs, and adopted other protective measures against foreign competitors.

7.2.1 Safety system

In recent years, U.S. policy toward China has undergone significant shifts, with digital technology emerging as a key area for the U.S. to impose trade sanctions and technological blockades on China. The United States has implemented digital technology security policies that reflect a strengthening of authoritarian tendencies. Former President Trump was the first to label China as a revisionist country, asserting that China’s digital technology impacts the international order and poses a threat to U.S. national security and citizens’ personal privacy. His administration continued to malign and suppress China, introducing a series of boycott policies that severely strained U.S.-China relations.

To protect the fundamental interests of the American public, particularly those at the lower socioeconomic levels, the U.S. government adopted a range of anti-globalization measures, such as exacerbating Sino-U.S. trade tensions, raising immigration barriers, and significantly reducing the number of Chinese students in the U.S. Similar to Trump’s stance, President Biden also views China’s rise as a challenge to the United States, maintaining a tough approach toward China. However, unlike the Trump administration’s strategy, the Biden administration’s core approach seeks to counterbalance Trump’s unilateral containment and anti-globalization rhetoric. Biden’s strategy emphasizes strengthening security systems and countering China’s influence by uniting global allies.

In response to perceived digital technology threats from China and other nations, the U.S. is expected to continue its firm foreign policy stance. The U.S. will likely persist with its traditional “national security” strategy concerning digital technology issues, aiming to prevent China and other competing nations from “stealing” American technology. At the same time, the U.S. will focus on advancing its military and cutting-edge digital technologies to safeguard national security.

7.2.2 Market system

The concept of free market competition, central to the neoliberal trend, has deeply influenced U.S. economic policies, particularly in the digital market sector. Moving forward, the United States is expected to continue prioritizing the market mechanism of free competition, viewing digital technology strategy as a fundamental aspect of its top-level design. This will involve achieving coordinated development between digital technology and digital policies, positioning the U.S. to become increasingly dominant in the global digital technology market.

Moreover, future U.S. policies will likely emphasize macroeconomic control to maintain market order and meet demand, while also safeguarding the interests of small and medium-sized digital enterprises. The government will focus on regulating and overseeing monopolistic behaviors of large internet platforms and promoting the digital transformation of small and medium-sized businesses. In its competition with other nations in the digital technology sector, the United States will use developing countries as a focal point, crafting policies that encourage market expansion and investment. These efforts aim to create a stable environment for American digital companies, reducing the uncertainties they face during their development processes.

7.2.3 Technical system

7.3.1 Global economic and trade pattern

Nationalization has emerged as a strategic approach, with governments around the world continuously enhancing their digital technology capabilities, strengthening competitiveness, and improving the security and economic benefits derived from digital technology through various policies focused on digital technology and trade protection. In order to maximize profits, multinational companies leverage the advantages of different countries, deploying their digital technology industries globally and reshaping the global digital technology supply chain.

Through this global expansion of the digital technology industry, developed countries can alleviate some of their production pressures, while the digital technology development and national economies of developing countries are enhanced. However, the formation of exclusive technological alliances in the West has significantly hindered technological cooperation between countries and companies, raising the costs and barriers to global digital technology development. The regional development of the digital industry has also led to a sharp increase in production, storage, and transportation costs, which is detrimental to the healthy growth of global digital technology and trade.

7.3.2 Global technology production pattern

The rapid development of digital technology has effectively broken down geographical barriers between countries. However, the uneven development of digital technology remains a significant challenge faced by all nations. Factors such as international status, ideology, national culture, education levels, and racial differences contribute to disparities in the use of digital technology and access to information among various groups. The impact of these disparities extends far beyond technology, influencing politics, economics, culture, society, and other sectors. The global distribution of digital technology capabilities among nations is uneven, and the “digital divide” continues to exist and widen.

To achieve the common development of digital technology, countries worldwide must cooperate in this field, effectively promote global interconnection, and seek a balanced approach to globalization. This cooperation is essential in narrowing the digital divide between countries. Globalization has profoundly impacted the development of nation-states, and these states must create a global governance model from a cosmopolitan perspective. As such, digital technology must be developed in a manner that aligns with global needs, and a fair and reasonable system should be established to foster an effective new global order.

7.3.3 The rise of anti-globalization trend

Globalization is evolving in various forms, including deglobalization and re-globalization. The imbalance of interests between countries and domestic interest groups has led to a win-lose opposition (Gomory and Baumol 2009). Anti-globalization, characterized by trade protectionism, stands in opposition to the process of economic integration. It arises from longstanding issues in globalization that remain unresolved. The anti-globalization trend is evident in digital technology reports on China in major outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Currently, the anti-globalization trend is rising globally, leading to changes in the rules governing global digital technology. This period of anti-globalization is primarily marked by the digital technology cold war and economic and trade wars, driven by political competition and various anti-globalization measures, such as raising tariffs and imposing immigration bans. Most resource-based countries are being forced into the globalization wave. The U.S. government attributes its lack of leadership in digital technology to “globalization”, mistakenly believing that “anti-globalization” offers a solution. In its effort to maintain and solidify its hegemonic position in global technology and the economy, the United States faces China – an emerging, powerful economy and rival. Leveraging its technological and capital advantages, the U.S. adopts what it calls a “fair” and “liberal” approach to digital technology, utilizing “self-protection” methods and adhering to the “America First” principle. This has led to the forceful exportation of the “Washington Consensus”, which is based on neoliberal principles, particularly since the Trump administration’s rise to power, which has ignited a more intense global resistance against the globalization trend.

The United States believes that “state capitalism”, as represented by China, undermines fair competition within the existing globalization framework. The transformation of U.S.-China relations is closely intertwined with the transformation of globalization itself. In the realm of digital technology, the U.S. has taken extreme anti-globalization measures, launching a large-scale trade war against China. This has involved targeting Chinese companies like ZTE and Huawei, bypassing the World Trade Organization, and imposing high tariffs on Chinese goods, particularly in the high-tech sector, thus hindering the development of China’s digital technology industry.

At the security level, the U.S. has imposed various export restrictions on Chinese companies under the pretext of “national security”. Nationally, the U.S. has sought to sanction China’s digital economy by creating policies designed to ease class contradictions and protect bourgeois economic interests. However, anti-globalization cannot restore the U.S. economy fundamentally and may even hinder its growth.

Therefore, it is essential to accurately grasp the current state of globalization, deeply understand the nature of neoliberal globalization, and recognize the dominant role of neoliberalism in the globalization process. This understanding will help in constructing new globalization theories and paradigms while reflecting on the ongoing anti-globalization trend.