America’s Tech Strategy Must Put US Interests First
America is engaged in a high-stakes competition with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—one that will shape our economic future and national security for decades to come. Every major policy choice we make, from tariffs and export controls to immigration enforcement and counter-narcotics efforts, affects whether the United States ultimately prevails. As someone who has spent decades in public service, I am convinced that winning this competition requires more than smart policy in Washington. It also requires accountability in America’s corporate boardrooms.
Too often, the debate over U.S.-China competition focuses exclusively on government action, as if federal policymakers alone determine the outcome. In reality, American companies operating at the technological frontier play a decisive role. While businesses must have the freedom to compete in global markets, that freedom cannot extend to practices that undermine America’s long-term economic and security interests.
High-profile firms like Nvidia and TikTok have drawn scrutiny for business relationships that risk empowering the CCP. But other major U.S. companies have largely escaped public attention, even as their decisions materially benefit China’s industrial, military, and surveillance ambitions. Qualcomm is a prime example.
The San Diego–based semiconductor giant depends heavily on China for its revenue. In the most recent fiscal year, approximately 46% of Qualcomm’s sales—about $17.8 billion—came from customers headquartered in China. That level of dependence creates powerful incentives to accommodate Beijing, even when doing so harms American interests.
Those incentives have arguably shaped Qualcomm’s behavior. The company has reportedly invested in Chinese firms directly linked to mass surveillance and repression, including SenseTime, which played a role in monitoring Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The U.S. government placed SenseTime on a blacklist for its involvement in human rights abuses, declaring that democracies must act against entities that “inflict suffering and repression.” Yet Qualcomm continued investing in the company and even showcased its surveillance technology to investors.
This pattern extends further. Qualcomm has backed Chinese firms tied to the People’s Liberation Army and companies working to circumvent U.S. semiconductor export controls. In effect, an American technology leader has helped strengthen China’s military and surveillance capabilities while weakening the very restrictions designed to protect U.S. security.
Qualcomm’s relationship with Chinese authorities also stands out. In 2015, when Beijing launched an antitrust investigation into the company, Qualcomm emerged with what analysts described as a “relative win”—a settlement that boosted its stock price nearly 3%. The deal included a $150 million investment commitment to Chinese startups and a 35% discount on patent licensing fees for devices sold in China. By contrast, Qualcomm routinely challenges regulators aggressively in the U.S. and Europe.
The consequences of that agreement still reverberate. One could argue that Qualcomm’s licensing structure systematically favors low-cost Chinese smartphones over American-made devices. U.S. consumers are effectively subsidizing China’s handset industry every time they buy a phone, while American and allied manufacturers face a structural disadvantage.
Unlike other tech giants, Qualcomm has faced relatively little sustained scrutiny from policymakers or the public. That must change. At a minimum, public companies should be required to disclose how much of their revenue depends on China and whether they offer preferential pricing or terms there. Investors and consumers also deserve transparency when U.S. capital and expertise flow into Chinese military or surveillance projects.
Companies, for their part, have clear choices. End licensing practices that advantage Chinese manufacturers over American and allied firms. Exit investments tied to blacklisted activities. Compete globally—but not at the expense of U.S. security.
Every American firm operating in critical fields like 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors can help determine the outcome of this century’s defining competition. The choice is simple: continue trading strategic leverage for short-term access to the Chinese market, or compete on American terms and help ensure that the free world—not Beijing—sets the standards for the future.
James Carter oversaw the U.S. Department of Labor’s international portfolio as deputy undersecretary for international affairs (2006-07). He later headed President-elect Donald Trump’s tax team during the 2016-17 transition and served as the director of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Prosperity (2021-23).
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!
