Comparison of Becky Romero’s and Donald Trump’s Views on China Policy, Arms Sales to Taiwan, Military Deterrence, National Defense Strategies, and Naval Strength
Becky Romero and Donald Trump both focus on countering Chinese aggression and maintaining U.S. power in the Indo-Pacific, but their policy approaches differ significantly, particularly in their emphasis on military deterrence, trade practices, arms sales to Taiwan, alliances, and strategic positioning. This detailed analysis explores their contrasting views on U.S. foreign policy toward China, military deterrence strategies, defense policies, and positions on naval strength, with an additional focus on Becky’s advocacy for Guam’s statehood, support for the AUKUS treaty, and the differences in their defense budget proposals.1. Trade Policy Towards China (Including MFN and PNTR)
Becky Romero
Romero’s stance on trade with China heavily reflect the concerns raised decades ago by Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA). Both were critical of China’s trade practices, particularly its exploitation of cheap labor, currency manipulation, and lack of environmental and labor standards. Gephardt, especially, was a proponent of protecting American workers from the adverse effects of global trade, advocating for trade policies that would hold China accountable for unfair practices. Harkin, who was particularly focused on worker rights, emphasized that U.S. trade with China must address issues like labor exploitation and the lack of human rights protections.
Romero is opposed to the continuation of policies like Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, unless they are conditioned on significant reforms in trade practices and human rights. She advocates for the reevaluation or termination of these policies unless China demonstrated clear progress on labor conditions, democratic freedoms, and international human rights standards in the country.
Donald Trump
Trump’s approach to trade with China has been aggressive, particularly during his first term. He consistently criticized China for its unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and trade imbalances. Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods and pushed for a “phase one” trade deal that aimed to reduce the trade deficit and compel China to make concessions on intellectual property and market access. While he did not make human rights a major focus of his trade policy, he did align his administration’s actions with an overall strategy of economic decoupling from China in select areas. Trump advocates pursuing direct, transactional trade agreements rather than multilateral or conditional trade reforms akin to Romero’s emphasis on human rights.
Comparison:
Both Romero and Trump agree on the need to confront China’s unfair trade practices, but their approaches diverge. Romero, influenced by human rights advocates like the late Tom Lantos (D-CA) and human rights advocate Sarah Leah Whitson, would demand stricter conditions on China’s human rights record as part of any trade agreements. Trump, however, focused more on economic leverage through tariffs and direct negotiations, with less emphasis on China’s internal policies.
2. Military Deterrence and U.S. Naval Strength in the Pacific
Romero and Trump have differing approaches to U.S. naval strength, particularly with regard to fleet size and strategic priorities in the Pacific.
Becky Romero
Romero strongly supports a technologically advanced and forward-deployed U.S. Navy in the Pacific, influenced by military strategists like Alfred Thayer Mahan and admirals like Nimitz and Zumwalt. She recognizes the growing Chinese naval capabilities and believes that a robust U.S. naval presence is essential for maintaining balance and power in the Indo-Pacific. Her military deterrence strategy would focus on countering Chinese expansion, particularly in the South China Sea and making any Chinese invasion across Taiwan Strait a dubious adventure at least. Romero would also emphasize the importance of U.S. air capabilities to support naval operations and regional deterrence.
Romero advocates for extending the lifespan of the first four Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with another refueling of their nuclear reactors to bring the Navy back to 15 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier battlegroups, ensuring it remains capable of meeting global threats, particularly from China. Only after this increase should the Nimitz-class carriers be retired one-for-one as additional Ford-class carriers are commissioned. Furthermore, she opposes any further decommissioning of Ticonderoga-class AEGIS missile cruisers, emphasizing the need for these effective assets to stay in service to counter China’s naval and missile threats in the Pacific. Romero’s strategy is characterized by caution and long-term preservation of naval capabilities, aligning with her broader commitment to ensuring robust deterrence and military readiness.
Romero supports a trillion-dollar-per-year defense budget to help fund the increase in naval strength and modernize the U.S. military, ensuring the Navy can effectively compete with China’s growing naval power.
Trump
During his first term, Trump emphasized expanding U.S. naval strength, calling for a 350-ship fleet and prioritizing a shift toward new technologies. However, his actual budget proposals fell short of achieving this goal. Trump’s 2021 budget, for example, allocated insufficient funds for new ships, including the cancellation of several planned vessels. Despite his rhetoric, Trump’s defense spending, particularly for the Navy, did not meet the ambitious targets he set, with the budget underfunding fleet expansion and shipbuilding programs. Additionally, Trump’s stated focus was more on modernizing the Navy with advanced technologies, such as hypersonic weapons and cyber capabilities, than on preserving older assets. For example, while Trump supported the development of new high-tech military systems, his administration did not commit to maintaining older but highly effective platforms, like the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, at the same level as Romero advocates.
Trump’s naval strategy also aimed to align U.S. capabilities with the growing threat from China, but the lack of full funding for new ships and the emphasis on modernization over maintaining a larger, balanced fleet left many of his naval goals unmet. Critics of his naval strategy, including some bipartisan leaders, have pointed out that his cuts to shipbuilding would leave the Navy struggling to meet the growing Chinese threat.
Comparison:
Romero’s naval strategy is marked by a commitment to a well-maintained, expansive fleet with a mix of new and old assets, ensuring a robust, long-term deterrent against China. This includes maintaining the Nimitz-class carriers longer and resisting the decommissioning of older ships like the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
Her call for a trillion-dollar defense budget and an increase in naval strength to maintain 15 aircraft carrier battlegroups contrasts with Trump’s more measured approach to defense spending. While both Romero and Trump both state they are committed to strengthening the U.S. military, Romero’s proposal emphasizes a long-term, expansive investment in naval strength, while Trump’s stance would likely focus more on ensuring cost-effectiveness and streamlining military expenditures, with a heavier emphasis on advanced technology and force modernization.
Trump, while advocating for a 350-ship fleet, struggled to fund such an expansion and leaned more toward modernizing military technology, particularly in cyber and missile defense, which ultimately did not result in significant naval expansion. The contrast between the two is one of cautious, preservationist approach versus a more technology-driven modernization agenda, with differing priorities for naval strength in the Indo-Pacific.
3. Arms Sales to Taiwan
Becky Romero
Romero strongly support arms sales to Taiwan, viewing the island nation as a key democratic outpost in the Indo-Pacific and a critical element of U.S. strategy in countering China. Her stance aligns with figures like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who advocated for assisting democratic allies facing authoritarian threats. She would see arms sales to Taiwan as both a means of ensuring its self-defense and a symbolic gesture of U.S. commitment to democracy. Additionally, human rights concerns regarding China’s treatment of ethnic minorities would reinforce her advocacy for Taiwan’s right to defend itself.
Donald Trump
Trump supported arms sales to Taiwan during his presidency, significantly increasing military aid to the island. His administration made moves to provide Taiwan with advanced weaponry and strengthen its defense capabilities. However, Trump’s focus was often on strategic leverage and maintaining a balance of power, with less emphasis on the symbolic aspect of supporting democracy. He was also willing to take a more direct approach to confronting China, especially in terms of deterrence, without shying away from a more transactional relationship with Taiwan.
Comparison:
Both Romero and Trump strongly support arms sales to Taiwan, but Romero would likely approach the issue from a broader strategic and moral standpoint, focusing on democracy and human rights. Trump, while supportive of Taiwan’s defense, would approach the matter more from the perspective of ensuring U.S. strategic advantage and leveraging Taiwan’s defense as part of his broader policy toward China.
4. Statehood for Guam and Strategic Military Positioning
Becky Romero
Romero advocates for granting Guam statehood, viewing it as a critical move to strengthen U.S. deterrence in the Pacific. She believes that elevating Guam to statehood would send a strong signal to China that any attack on Guam would be considered an attack on a U.S. state, thereby triggering a full-scale military response. Given Guam’s role as a vital U.S. military hub in the region, Romero argues that statehood would enhance its strategic importance and security. She contends that as long as Guam remains a U.S. territory, it could be perceived by adversaries as a more vulnerable target, potentially inviting preemptive strikes aimed at delaying U.S. intervention in conflicts such as a Taiwan contingency.
Donald Trump
Trump has explicitly opposed granting statehood to Guam. In a 2020 interview, he expressed concerns that granting statehood to Guam could lead to the election of Democratic senators, potentially altering the balance of power in Congress. He stated, “I don’t see Guam becoming a state. It’s a strategic location, but making it a state doesn’t make sense to me.” Additionally, in a 2024 statement, Trump remarked, “Guam isn’t America in the same way the states are. It’s a territory, and it serves its purpose as such.” These comments indicate that Trump acknowledges Guam’s importance to U.S. military strategy but does not favor changing its territorial status, partly due to political considerations regarding party representation in the Senate.
Comparison:
Romero’s position on Guam’s statehood is grounded in a broader strategic vision for U.S. deterrence, seeking to enhance the political and military standing of the territory to strengthen national security in the Pacific region. She believes that statehood would solidify Guam’s role and deter potential adversaries by ensuring any aggression against it would be met with a decisive response. In contrast, Trump recognizes Guam’s strategic military importance but prefers to maintain its current territorial status, viewing it as sufficient for its role in U.S. defense strategy. His opposition to statehood is influenced by concerns over potential political shifts in Congress, reflecting a more cautious approach to altering the political status of U.S. territories.
5. AUKUS Treaty
Becky Romero
Romero strongly supports the AUKUS treaty, recognizing it as a vital component of U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific. A key aim of AUKUS is to counter China’s growing naval influence, particularly by providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, enhancing regional deterrence. Romero sees the treaty as a strengthening of U.S. alliances with Australia and the United Kingdom, ensuring that democratic nations are equipped to counter China’s regional ambitions. For Romero, the treaty represents a multilateral approach to maintaining stability and peace in the Indo-Pacific.
Donald Trump
Trump’s stance on the AUKUS treaty is less clear, as it was concluded after his first term in offcie. However, during his tenure, Trump was often skeptical of multilateral security agreements, favoring more direct, bilateral negotiations. While Trump recognized the need to counter China, his approach was more focused on ensuring U.S. interests rather than fostering complex multilateral agreements like AUKUS. He would likely have preferred bilateral defense agreements, which placed more direct emphasis on U.S. influence and leverage.
Comparison:
Romero’s strong support for AUKUS represents her commitment to strengthening multilateral alliances and countering China through collective defense strategies. Trump, while sharing the goal of countering China, has a preference for bilateral rather than multilateral arrangements, focusing more on U.S. dominance and direct negotiations.
________________________________________
Conclusion
In conclusion, Becky Romero and Donald Trump share a common concern for confronting China’s rising influence and military power, but their strategies diverge significantly in key areas. While both are committed to strengthening the U.S. military and ensuring robust deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, Romero places a greater emphasis on multilateral alliances, human rights considerations, and a long-term vision for increasing naval strength. Her advocacy for a trillion-dollar defense budget, the extension of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, and the preservation of the Ticonderoga-class AEGIS cruisers reflect her deep commitment to ensuring the U.S. remains the dominant military force in the region, with a particular focus on maintaining a strong and technologically advanced Navy.
Trump, on the other hand, while stating he is committed to strengthening military capabilities, particularly the Navy, tends to focus more on a cost-effective, results-oriented approach. His emphasis on reducing government spending while increasing military investments aligns with his broader “America First” policy. Trump’s approach is more transactional, favoring bilateral agreements and a focus on streamlining military capabilities, without necessarily pursuing the kind of expansive, long-term commitments advocated by Romero. Strategic needs are prioritized, but without the same level of focus on expanding U.S. political and military influence through multilateral frameworks.
Romero’s stance on statehood for Guam, as well as her advocacy for the AUKUS treaty, further demonstrates her belief in strengthening alliances and bolstering U.S. power in the Indo-Pacific through strategic partnerships. Trump, while supportive of a strong U.S. presence in the region, is focused on reinforcing American leadership and military might on a bilateral level, without the need for territorial changes like Guam’s statehood or extensive international agreements like AUKUS.
Ultimately, the contrast between Romero and Trump lies in their approach to balancing military power, strategic alliances, and economic considerations. Romero seeks a long-term, expansive defense posture that combines military deterrence with a strong human rights and diplomatic agenda, while Trump’s focus is on immediate, direct action to protect U.S. interests and counter China through economic and military means. Both positions aim to secure U.S. dominance in the face of Chinese aggression, but their methods and priorities highlight the different paths they envision for achieving that goal.