Friday, 10 October 2025
A new study from history and political academics, examining the ongoing technology rivalry between the United States and China, tells the story of the ‘tech war’ so far, how and why it developed, and the impact and consequences to date.
The findings of the project by Dr Maria Ryan, Associate Professor in American History at the University of Nottingham’s Department of American and Canadian Studies, and Emeritus Professor Stephen Burman of the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex, have been published in the Chinese Journal of International Politics.
The ‘tech war’ refers to Washington’s attempts to preserve its global technological leadership – and, by extension, its military power. The initial focus of the tech war was 5G technology: Washington sought to prevent leading Chinese tech companies, such as Huawei, from being part of the global 5G infrastructure roll-out on the basis that its networks could be vulnerable to espionage by the Chinese state.
Now, however, the rivalry goes well beyond 5G. Its core goal is to prevent Chinese companies from accessing a wide range of the most advanced US technologies, such as semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics.
This new research offers the first systematic, evidence-based study of the impact of US efforts to decouple from China across a range of high-end technologies, known as ‘emerging and foundational technologies.’ It examines the impact of two companion pieces of legislation passed by Congress in 2018: the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) and the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA).
Dr Ryan, who led the research, which was funded by the British Academy, said:
“Our findings tell the story of the tech war so far: how and why it developed, what measures Congress and the White House have taken to enact new controls on the spread of high-end US tech, and what the impact (and unintended consequences) of this has been, for the United States, for China, for US allies and for the current global order.”
The particular focus is technology that has military applications. Over the past seven to eight years, the Trump and Biden administrations, and the US Congress, have been gravely concerned that advanced US tech could potentially be used to develop China’s military power. Although Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply in other policy areas, there is now a very strong bipartisan consensus that the US should aim to decouple from China in high-end tech with military applications. This goal has been pursued aggressively by both parties in recent years.
The goal of the 2018 legislation was to control two broad new categories of technology that Congress labelled ‘emerging’ and ‘foundational.’ FIRRMA provided new powers to screen foreign investments in such tech, while ECRA would impose new controls on their export. The goal was a targeted decoupling from China in ‘emerging and foundational technologies’ to prevent Beijing from using this tech for military purposes.
However, the Department of Commerce (DoC) has been unable to define the categories of ‘emerging’ and ‘foundational’ technologies – because of their inherent complexity – or provide lists of proscribed items, as expected by Congress. It is not clear whether new export controls have limited the export of advanced US tech to China. Since the implementation of FIRRMA, China remains one of the top 10 acquirers of US critical technologies via investments in US companies. This means the impact of the legislation has been ambiguous at best.
Dr Ryan, added: “This action is not slowing the drive to decouple from China in advanced tech with military applications. This goal is being pursued aggressively on a bipartisan basis. For example, new outbound investment screening powers were introduced in January 2025, directed solely at investments in Chinese tech.”
All of this has been strongly resisted by the affected businesses and industries. The US Chamber of Commerce, the US-China Business Council and the US semiconductor industry lobbied aggressively against broad controls on ‘emerging and foundational technologies’ and outbound investment screening. This has had little effect.
There is a new consensus in Washington – cross party and across different branches of government – that free trade is no longer always compatible with US security goals and that in order to preserve US military and political primacy – its position of strength in the world – systematic controls that curtail free trade in advanced tech must be enacted regardless of their economic impact.
This creates challenges for third countries: some US investment screening is extraterritorial – meaning it can target non-US-companies investing in China. Washington is also pressing allies to enact similar restrictions on tech transfers to China.
China has responded to the tech war with restrictions of its own – for example on rare earth metals that the West is dependent upon. This suggests that there is an escalatory dynamic at play and that Washington cannot control the tech war in the carefully calibrated way it wants to.
Emeritus Professor Stephen Burman, said: “The tech war offers a window on the intensity of the Great Power struggle between the US and China, which, if it escalates, threatens the stability of the international order in ways that will affect us all.”
Story credits
More information is available from Dr Maria Ryan in the Department of American and Canadian Studies, via maria.ryan@nottingham.ac.uk
Notes to editors:
About the University of Nottingham
Ranked 97 in the world and 17th in the UK by the QS World University Rankings, the University of Nottingham is a founding member of Russell Group of research-intensive universities. Studying at the University of Nottingham is a life-changing experience, and we pride ourselves on unlocking the potential of our students. We have a pioneering spirit, expressed in the vision of our founder Sir Jesse Boot, which has seen us lead the way in establishing campuses in China and Malaysia - part of a globally connected network of education, research and industrial engagement.
Nottingham was crowned Sports University of the Year by The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide 2024 – the third time it has been given the honour since 2018 – and by the Daily Mail University Guide 2024.
The university is among the best universities in the UK for the strength of our research, positioned seventh for research power in the UK according to REF 2021. The birthplace of discoveries such as MRI and ibuprofen, our innovations transform lives and tackle global problems such as sustainable food supplies, ending modern slavery, developing greener transport, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
The university is a major employer and industry partner - locally and globally - and our graduates are the third most targeted by the UK's top employers, according to The Graduate Market in 2024 report by High Fliers Research.
We lead the Universities for Nottingham initiative, in partnership with Nottingham Trent University, a pioneering collaboration between the city’s two world-class institutions to improve levels of prosperity, opportunity, sustainability, health and wellbeing for residents in the city and region we are proud to call home.
More news…