 |
| U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Win McNamee/Pool Photo via AP) |
The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.
In a recent address to the joint houses of Congress, US President Donald Trump declared that America would become “the most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth.” This assertion, grandiose even by Trumpian standards, underscores the administration's broader strategic vision—one steeped in American exceptionalism, zero-sum thinking, and an increasingly theological interpretation of geopolitical rivalry. At the heart of this vision lies a singular, overriding adversary: China.
The Trump administration's foreign policy frame and rhetoric is shaped by a cohort of key figures who conceive of international politics not merely as a contest for power, but as an existential and even spiritual battle.
Pete Hegseth, Trump's Secretary of Defense, in his 2020 book American Crusade, has articulated a view in which China is not just a geopolitical competitor but a "spiritual adversary." Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged that unipolarity—America's absolute dominance in the post-Cold War era—was an anomaly. The world, he conceded, had re-entered a period of multipolarity, one defined by great power competition. In this context, China is positioned as the principal adversary. Similarly, Vice President JD Vance has consistently cast China as the primary opponent in a struggle for global dominance.
This perspective aligns with evangelical Christian narratives that view large swathes of the world—particularly within the so-called "10/40 window"—as unreached by Christianity. Evangelical initiatives such as the Joshua Project see this as a call to arms for missionary and proselytizing efforts. In Hegseth's worldview, China's challenge to U.S. hegemony is not just material but metaphysical, a battle between the forces of Christian civilization and an unconverted rival. This battle is interwoven with a politics steeped in evangelical prophecies. Trump has drawn from a number of prominent evangelicals for support in both his 2016 and more recent campaigns.
Franklin Graham, the son of famous preacher Billy Graham, and ardent Trump supporter, has warned of the “threat" of China, often linking it to religious persecution and the erosion of Christian values. Others, like John Hagee (Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, 2006), Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, Robert Jeffries and Paula White-Cain have each advanced interpretations of biblical prophecies that variously suggest that Russia and several islamic nations will invade Israel, and that this will set the stage for a global confrontation involving China and the West at Armageddon, culminating in Christ's return. Hagee frames Trump's presidency as fulfilling biblical prophecy, calling him a leader chosen by God to protect Israel. Hal Lindsey, the author of The Late Great Planet Earth, advances a dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible suggesting that nations like Russia and China will play pivotal roles in end-times events. He associates the "kings from the east" mentioned in Revelation with China, indicating a significant eastern military presence in the prophesied final battles. Cain-White is Trump's White House spiritual advisor and portrays his presidency as a battle against demonic forces, reinforcing an apocalyptic worldview among some evangelicals.
The framings not only find voice in the administration but succour from the political support of evangelicals and associated activists in the MAGA movement.
Steve Bannon, a prominent figure in Donald Trump's MAGA movement, has articulated views that resonate with certain Evangelical perspectives, particularly regarding global power dynamics and confrontations with nations like China. Bannon envisions a prolonged dominance of the MAGA movement, asserting that it could govern for the next 50 years if it effectively implements its agenda. Central to this vision is a restructuring of American institutions and a decisive stance against China, reflecting a broader narrative of confronting perceived global threats. Bannon has called upon his supporters to prepare for ideological battles and hot wars, emphasizing a need to challenge existing global financial systems and confront adversarial nations. This rhetoric aligns with a confrontational approach toward China, positioning it as a central figure in the struggle against globalist structures. Bannon has worked to align evangelical support with Trump's nationalist agenda, often warning about a "holy war" against secular and communist influences, including China. He too has framed Trump's presidency as a fight to preserve Christian civilization, appealing to evangelicals who see global politics through a prophetic lens.
This vision has direct policy implications, particularly in how the administration prioritizes strategic threats and allocates resources. The Trump administration's recent efforts to extract the U.S. from the war in Ukraine reflect a belief that America's primary focus must be on China.
For years, Washington has poured resources into Ukraine as part of a broader strategy of weakening Russia. However, the administration now appears to recognize that its decades-long strategy of destabilization in Ukraine has failed. The war has not produced the intended results, and the political and resourcing costs of an indefinite quagmire are becoming untenable. The echoes of Vietnam and Afghanistan are unmistakable.
The shift away from Ukraine is framed as a necessary recalibration of American priorities. Given limited resources, the argument goes, the U.S. cannot afford to be distracted by secondary conflicts when the primary contest is with China. However, the pivot is not simply about grand strategy—it is also about optics and blame-shifting. The administration is keen to exit Ukraine while minimizing accountability for the debacle. The European allies, who were encouraged to escalate their involvement, are now being told by Hegseth to increase their defense spending. This, of course, serves a dual purpose: it relieves the U.S. of some financial burden while also bolstering the American defense industry. A significant portion—60%—of NATO's defense spending goes toward purchasing American-made weaponry, according to the Financial Times. When Hegseth calls for more spending, he is effectively calling for increased purchases of U.S. military hardware. Thus, while the U.S. may be disengaging from Ukraine, it is doing so in a way that ensures continued American influence over European security policy and sustains the financial interests of the U.S. defense sector.
Contrast this with China's approach to itself and its role in the globe, as showcased in its recently concluded "Two Sessions." Rather than emphasizing military dominance or ideological conflict, China's focus remains on domestic economic development, technological innovation, and global economic partnerships. At a time when the U.S. is entangled in strategic debacles, faltering withdrawals, trade wars, and ideological crusades, China presents itself as a steady pillar in an increasingly turbulent world.
While Trump's America speaks of dominance, China offers stability. While the Trump administration imposes tariffs that disrupt global supply chains, China presents itself as an economic anchor for developing nations.
The contrast could not be starker. The American offer to the world is one of confrontation and coercion, underpinned by a theological and militaristic worldview. China's offer, by contrast, is one of pragmatism and continuity. This divergence in approach is already reshaping global alliances. Many nations, particularly those in the Global South, are wary of being drawn into another Cold War-like struggle. For them, the choice is not between an "exceptional" America and a "spiritual adversary" in China, but between two models of engagement—one defined by disruption anchored by zero-sum thinking, the other by stability and the prospects of mutual benefit.
