The United States is at grave risk of losing global leadership to China in a strategically vital group of advanced, traded-sector industries that provide the foundation for economic strength and national security in the 21st century. ITIF calls them “national economic power industries.” China’s coordinated long-term campaign to dominate these industries is not a normal economic competition; it is nothing short of techno-economic-trade war designed to put the United States and the West generally in a subservient position. Avoiding defeat for America and its allies will require policymakers in Washington to make fundamental policy changes.

Please register now to join ITIF for an important policy conference. Leading experts will consider the findings of an 18-month research effort that ITIF is conducting with support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, and discuss what U.S. policymakers must do to prevent America from suffering a catastrophic defeat in its techno-economic-trade war with China.

Agenda

Last updated on October 30. Additional speakers to be announced.

Open

8:30–9:00 a.m. — Registration and Coffee

9:00–9:25 a.m. — Welcome and Framing: Remarks by Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow, ITIF

China is on the march to dominate the advanced industries that underpin economic strength and national power in the 21st century. It is already the world’s leading producer in industries ranging from computers and electronics to motor vehicles, and it is rapidly becoming a leading innovator in cutting-edge industries from robotics to AI and quantum. This represents an existential threat to U.S. technological leadership, power, and security. To avoid defeat, Washington must jettison old techno-economic and trade policy doctrines and adopt a new national power industry strategy.

Part 1: Factoring Techno-Economic Security Into National Security

9:30–10:25 a.m. — The War Department’s Role in Techno-Economic Security

America needs a whole-of-government approach to techno-economic defense. That requires institutional coordination under a lead agency. But which agency? The Commerce Department is one possibility. Alternatively, ITIF has recommended establishing a new, quasi-public National Advanced Industry and Technology Agency (NAITA) organized like the Ex-Im Bank, but with greater flexibility. But no matter how the effort is organized, the War Department will need to play a central role—after all, it is the one place in U.S. politics and government where “industrial policy” is seen as acceptable, if not necessary. What should the War Department’s role look like?

• Michael Brown, Partner, Shield Capital, and former director of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) at the U.S. Department of Defense
• Additional speakers to be announced
• Discussion with Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF

10:30–11:10 a.m. — 1948 Redux: Crafting the National Techno-Economic Security Establishment

To mobilize for the Cold War, U.S. leaders built a national security establishment from 1948 onward—yet anti-statist instincts restrained it, harnessing America’s economic might without letting the country harden into a centralized “garrison state.” That restraint proved to be a source of strength, helping a freer America outlast a statist rival. In China, the United States now faces a far more formidable techno-economic competitor than the Soviet Union ever was. What can the post-1948 mobilization teach U.S. policymakers today about building a durable strategy without sacrificing what makes America strong?

• Remarks by Aaron Friedberg, Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University
• Discussion with Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF

11:10–11:20 a.m. — Break

Part 2: The Threat Landscape

11:20 a.m.–12:20 p.m. — Panel: Over-the-Horizon Techno-Economic Attacks

Washington has a hard time acting until it “sees the whites of their eyes.” By then it’s too late. What techno-industrial attacks are coming from the PRC but not yet fully recognized in Washington? The next fronts are already taking shape in biopharmaceuticals, commercial aviation, and robotics, among many other advanced industries.

• Caitlin Frazer, Executive Director, National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB)
• Stephen Ezell, Executive Vice President, Global Innovation Policy, ITIF
• William Hannas, Lead Analyst, Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET)
• Mina Kim, Nonresident Senior Fellow, ITIF (moderator)

12:20–1:00 p.m. — Lunch Break

Part 3: What an Effective Response Looks Like

1:00–1:30 p.m. — Beyond Free Trade and Protectionism: Strategic Trade Partnerships

With the rise of mercantilist China, the longstanding free trade model is bankrupt. But across-the-board domestic protectionism is not the answer. The only way for the West to have the scale needed to avoid losing the techno-economic war to China is through deep strategic trade partnerships that incorporate not just trade policy, but also a host of other measures, including joint R&D, coordinated export and import controls, and commercial intelligence sharing.

• Remarks by Peter Harrell, Visiting Scholar, Georgetown Institute for International Economic Law
• Discussion with Rodrigo Balbontin, Associate Director, Trade, IP, and Digital Technology Governance, ITIF

1:35–2:05 p.m. — Beyond More Money: Structural Fixes for U.S. Science and Innovation Funding

The U.S. R&D funding system is still guided by the model Vannevar Bush laid out in 1945, “Science, the Endless Frontier”: strong decentralized federal support for research, with comparatively little attention to the mechanisms that convert research into innovation, growth, and competitiveness. What is the link between America’s declining R&D productivity and the dramatic shifts in the allocation of federal R&D that emerged under the Bush model? Reversing the decline requires greater centralization of federal R&D decision-making, while also identifying specific reforms that could improve the system.

• Remarks by Anne Marie Knott, Robert and Barbara Frick Professor of Business, Washington University and author of The US Innovation War with China (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press)
• Discussion with Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF

2:05–2:15 p.m. — Break

Part 4: The Political Challenge for Washington

2:15–2:55 p.m. — Beyond Financial Capitalism: National Power Capitalism

The single most important factor that will determine the outcome of the techno-economic-trade war with China is how U.S. firms make long-term investment decisions. The problem is that America’s current system of financial capitalism prioritizes paying profits to shareholders more than reinvesting earnings. To avoid losing to China, U.S. policymakers will need to rebalance that equation by ushering in a new system of “national power capitalism” that aligns shareholder interests with the national interest. That will require enacting major tax reforms to incentivize retained earnings and investment, and to disincentivize profit payouts; spurring “double bottom line” investment behavior that values national power; and creating targeted public sector investment vehicles.

• Featured speaker to be announced
• Discussion with Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF

3:00–3:45 p.m. — Panel: Why So Little Appetite for National Economic Power Strategy?

For half a century, American “financial capitalism” has rewarded short-term shareholder payouts over long-term reinvestment—starving the industries that underpin national power. To avoid losing the techno-economic trade war with China, policymakers must now rewrite that social contract by providing the incentives and public backing necessary to drive long-term investments in national power industry capabilities at home. So why the resistance? The free market Right calls it picking winners; the redistributionist Left wants profits going to workers instead. Washington has embraced a capitalism of investor freedom and of personal security—but not one built for economic power and national security.

• Ely Ratner, Principal, The Marathon Initiative
• Liza Tobin, Managing Director, Garnaut Global
• Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF (moderator)

Close

3:50–4:00 p.m. — Closing Remarks by Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF

4:00 p.m. — Adjourn