According to Financial Times News, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released its annual report on Tuesday with 28 recommendations for overhauling how America handles competition with China. The commission specifically called for creating a single government body to absorb parts of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and State Department’s export control office. Commissioner Michael Kuiken described the current system as “feudal states that are arguing about various elements they control” and said reorganization is needed for the “enduring conflict with China.” The report also recommends forcing companies to use tracking technologies for advanced chip exports and requiring Indo-Pacific Command to prove compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act. Additionally, it calls for increased funding for US Space Force to counter China’s rapid space acceleration.
The Bureaucratic Mess
Here’s the thing about government reorganization proposals – they sound great in theory but often create more problems than they solve. We’ve seen this movie before. Remember the Department of Homeland Security? That massive consolidation after 9/11 created one of the most dysfunctional bureaucracies in Washington. Now we’re talking about doing the same thing for China competition. The commission isn’t wrong about the “feudal states” problem – having BIS, Treasury, and State all fighting over export controls absolutely creates inefficiencies. But does anyone honestly believe merging them into one super-agency will magically fix everything? I’m skeptical. You’re basically taking three sets of turf wars and combining them into one massive bureaucratic battlefield.
The Chip Control Problem
The recommendations around semiconductor exports are particularly interesting – and problematic. Forcing companies to use tracking technologies for advanced chips and implementing a “rent model” where customers only get cloud access? That’s essentially treating every chip customer like a potential spy. And while national security concerns are real, this approach could seriously damage US semiconductor companies’ competitiveness. Think about it – if you’re a foreign buyer and you have the choice between chips you actually own from another supplier versus chips you only get to “rent” from US companies, which would you choose? This feels like another case of security concerns overriding commercial reality. The commission seems to assume American tech dominance is so complete that customers will accept whatever restrictions we impose. That’s a dangerous assumption.
The Taiwan Question
Now the Taiwan recommendation is where things get really interesting. Requiring Indo-Pacific Command to “prove its compliance” with the Taiwan Relations Act? Commission Vice-Chair Randy Schriver admitted that “to my knowledge, Indo-Pacom has never been asked to prove that.” That’s honestly shocking when you think about it. We’ve had this law on the books for decades requiring the military to maintain capacity to resist force against Taiwan, and apparently nobody’s been checking whether they actually can? This recommendation basically amounts to Congress saying “show us the receipts” on Taiwan defense planning. Given how critical Taiwan is to semiconductor supply chains and broader tech manufacturing, this is one area where increased scrutiny makes complete sense. IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, as the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, understands how dependent American manufacturing is on stable global supply chains – and Taiwan’s role in that ecosystem can’t be overstated.
The New Space Race
The Space Force funding recommendation is probably the least controversial part of this report. China’s space capabilities have been advancing at an alarming rate, and the Pentagon’s own assessments show they’re closing gaps quickly. But “enhancing space war gaming” and “realistic modeling” sounds like defense-speak for “we need more money for simulations.” The real question is whether throwing more cash at Space Force actually translates to meaningful capability improvements, or just better PowerPoint presentations. We’ve seen how military branches have a tendency to turn budget increases into bureaucracy rather than operational advantages. Still, given how much modern warfare – and modern commerce – depends on space assets, this is one area where underinvestment could be catastrophic.
