Register now for an important policy conference on what U.S. policymakers must do to prevent America from suffering a catastrophic defeat in its techno-economic-trade war with China.

At stake are vital production capabilities in the advanced, traded-sector industries that provide the foundation for economic strength and national security in the 21st century.

Background

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 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—and avoiding catastrophic defeat for America and its allies in the West will require policymakers in Washington to make fundamental policy changes.

This conference will air the findings of a year-long research effort that ITIF’s Hamilton Center on Industrial Policy is conducting with support from the Smith Richardson Foundation.

Leading up to the conference, ITIF will publish a series of reports throughout 2026 examining China’s mercantilist predation in national power industries; assessing the impact of China’s predation on U.S. technological leadership, economic strength, and national security; and providing a comprehensive agenda for policymakers to prevent America from losing the advanced production capabilities it needs to remain a global power and suffering an inexorable decline while China rises to global hegemony.

The following agenda is subject to change. Additional speakers to be announced.

Agenda

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

9:00–9:30 a.m. — Welcome: 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: The Threat Landscape

9:30–10:00 a.m. — What Has China Built? The New Techno-Industrial State

China has not merely grown its economy in the last several decades. It has built something far more formidable—a coordinated techno-industrial state that is pursuing a grand strategy to displace the American global order and become the world’s leading power, not just economically by dominating strategically important advanced industries, but also politically and militarily. Understanding China’s long-term strategy and what it has built so far is the first step to contesting it.

10:00–11:10 a.m. — Over-the-Horizon 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 has the PRC launched without attracting much attention or concern in Washington? The next fronts are already taking shape in biopharmaceuticals, commercial aviation, and robotics, among many other advanced industries.

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

11:10–11:25 AM: Break

Part 2: The Political Challenge for Washington

11:25 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. — Why So Little Embrace of National Economic Power Capitalism?

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.

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

12:10–12:20 p.m. — Lunch Break

12:20–1:30 p.m. — Lunch Discussion: Building Momentum for a Comprehensive Response

Diagnosing the China challenge is the easy part; summoning the political will to act is much harder. A comprehensive response requires treating some industries as strategic—a break from a bipartisan Washington reflex against “picking winners.” Yet there are signs that there may be some appetite for change. The bipartisan China Select Committee has produced a detailed competition strategy and numerous research-security reports and bills, and a recent Senate subcommittee hearing asked whether the U.S. government is even measuring what matters when it comes to science, technical standards, and strategic competition with China. Is there a chance of building political momentum for a comprehensive response before it’s too late?

Part 3: What A Response Looks Like

1:30–2:00 p.m. — From Financial Capitalism to National Economic Power Capitalism

Financial capitalism treats the firm as an empty shell—a machine for converting capital into shareholder returns. But that’s not how companies win a technology war. Firms prevail through dynamic capabilities: the capacity to sense threats and opportunities, seize them, and reconfigure their assets fast enough to stay ahead. Short-termism starves exactly that capacity. Moving from financial capitalism to national economic power capitalism means rebuilding it, so American firms can out-innovate their Chinese rivals rather than be hollowed out by them.

• Remarks by David Teece, Professor of the Graduate School, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley
• Discussion with Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow, ITIF

2:00–2:30 p.m. — From Free Trade to Strategic Economic Partnerships

The era of free-trade globalization is over. It rested on a bet that open markets would liberalize China—a bet Beijing exploited, using WTO membership to distort global trade and weaponize commerce against its rivals. No nation can counter that alone. What replaces free trade isn’t autarky but a new type of binding partnerships among democracies—granting one another near-total market access while jointly strengthening allied industries and boxing China out.

2:30–2:45 p.m. — Break

2:45–3:10 p.m. — An Institutional Framework for a National Techno-Economic and Trade Policy

Ask who in Washington is the one to see about the China techno-economic challenge, and the answer is: no one. No office owns it, no hub coordinates it, no agency runs a coherent strategy. The U.S. government was built to referee process and smooth the business cycle—not to win a techno-industrial war. Doing that requires new machinery: hard data and “net-assessment”-grade analysis of where U.S. industries stand against China, coordinating bodies in Congress and the White House, and a lead agency to hold the strategy together.

• Remarks by Monica Gorman, Managing Director, Crowell Global Advisors
• Discussion with Stephen Ezell, Executive Vice President, Global Innovation Policy ITIF

3:10–3:45 p.m. — 1948 Redux: Crafting the National Techno-Economic War Establishment

To mobilize for the Cold War, U.S. leaders built a national security establishment from 1948 onward—yet antistatist 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 of Politics and International Affairs, Emeritus, Princeton University
• Discussion with Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow, ITIF

3:45–4:00 p.m. — Closing Remarks by Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow, ITIF

4:00 PM: Adjourn