Inside Trump’s 2025 Blueprint for War with China

Eyes on Taiwan, Profits at Lockheed & Co

Introduction: A Second-Term Escalation in the Pacific

In July 2025, the United States is openly girding itself for a possible war with China. President Donald Trump’s second term has unleashed a flurry of actions – military deployments, defense pacts, industrial mobilization, and bellicose rhetoric – all ostensibly aimed at “deterring” China but effectively preparing for direct conflict. From the South China Sea to the Taiwan Strait, Washington’s moves have been aggressive. Trump’s Pentagon, empowered by hawkish advisers and fueled by the military–industrial complex, is treating the Indo-Pacific as a battlefield in waiting. Critics say this Pacific “wargasm” is less about defense than profit and power – a war blueprint that benefits arms dealers and ideological hardliners at the expense of global peace.

Under the banner of “competition,” 2025 has witnessed executive orders and Defense Department directives explicitly naming China as America’s top threat. U.S. officials openly discuss “real war plans” for the Indo-Pacific geopoliticaleconomy.com. Massive budgets are being poured into new weapons and bases, and Washington’s allies are pressed to join the buildup. All of this is framed as “deterrence” – yet each step heightens tensions and inches the world closer to a superpower clash. This investigative exposé will dissect how Trump’s America is actively preparing for war with China in 2025, scrutinizing who pushes this agenda and who profits from it. I draw on official statements, leaked plans, war games, and on-the-ground developments across the Pacific to reveal a sobering picture: a U.S. war machine gearing up for its next target.

In summary: The Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy is a war blueprint in all but name. Despite public claims of seeking peace, Washington’s actions – from deploying bombers and missile batteries near China’s shores to waging economic warfare and propaganda campaigns – betray an unmistakably offensive posture. This report critically examines those actions, the role of defense contractors and think-tank hawks in driving escalation, and the contradictions in the U.S. narrative. Who truly benefits from stoking a confrontation with Beijing? And at what cost to the rest of the world?

I discussed this executive brief with Malta’s former foreign minister Evarist Bartolo yesterday. If you have not done so yet, subscribe on my Youtube channel to get notified when it’s published (https://www.youtube.com/@saltcubeanalytics).

(All sources for factual claims are cited in the text, and a comprehensive source list is provided at the end.)

While Trump is preparing for war with China, Europes unelected officials are pushing for war with Russia. Sooner rather than later both theatres of war will merge.

Trump’s War Footing: Rhetoric and Directives Targeting China

From day one of his return to the White House, President Trump set a confrontational tone on China. His administration’s official rhetoric now consistently casts Beijing as an imminent danger. In fact, a leaked Pentagon memo indicated that “preparing for war with China” has been elevated to the Department of Defense’s top priority, taking precedence over all other issues geopoliticaleconomy.com. This prioritization is reflected in high-profile speeches and policy documents:

• Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Fox News alumnus known for hardline views, bluntly warned in May 2025 that “the threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent”. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, Hegseth claimed Beijing is “rehearsing for the real deal” of invading Taiwan and urged Asian nations to militarize rapidly theguardian.com. “There’s no reason to sugar coat it,” he said, describing China as credibly preparing to use force to change the Indo-Pacific balance theguardian.com. He vowed the U.S. would expand its presence in the region and unveiled new joint military projects with allies theguardian.com. While insisting “we do not seek conflict,” Hegseth in the same breath declared that if deterrence fails the Pentagon is “prepared to… fight and win, decisively” against China defense.gov. In essence, the Pentagon publicly affirmed it is actively planning for war, even as it claims to prefer peace.

• Executive directives from the Trump White House also explicitly label China a strategic menace. For example, in April 2025 Trump signed an executive order declaring it U.S. policy to “revitalize and rebuild” America’s maritime industry for national security reasons china-briefing.com. The order notes that the U.S. builds less than 1% of the world’s ships while “the People’s Republic of China is responsible for producing approximately half”china-briefing.com – framing China’s shipbuilding dominance as a military threat. Trump directed officials to impose new fees and restrictions on Chinese shipping, portraying it as countering China’s “unreasonable” drive to control global logistics china-briefing.com. Similarly, other 2025 orders and policy moves have targeted Chinese tech and students (more on that below), all under the guise of national security. The messaging is clear: China is America’s foremost adversary, across economic, technological, and military domains.

• In his few major speeches on foreign policy this year, Trump himself has singled out China in stark terms. At a February 2025 press conference with India’s Prime Minister, Trump not only hailed a new oil trade deal but segued into pledging massive arms sales to India to counter China. “We’ll be increasing military sales to India by many billions of dollars. We’re also paving the way to ultimately provide India with the F-35 stealth fighters,” Trump announced reuters.com. (Indian officials were caught off guard, noting no such fighter deal was actually set – Trump’s pledge was aspirational reuters.com – but the intent to arm India against China was unmistakable). In the same breath, Trump spoke of “radical Islamic terrorism”; notably, he now often mentions China alongside past U.S. bogeymen, rhetorically putting the Chinese Communist Party in the same box as ISIS or Iran. The administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) draft circulating in Washington (according to insiders) reportedly defines China as a “revisionist power” that must be “constrained militarily” to preserve U.S. primacy in Asia. Although the full NSS remains classified, its influence is visible in budget and force posture decisions emphasizing the China threat.

This stark official line marks a shift from Trump’s first term (2017–2020), when anti-China moves centered mainly on trade. Now, in 2025, military confrontation is foregrounded. The irony is that public opinion, while broadly wary of China, isn’t clamoring for war. A recent Pew Research survey found 56% of Americans view China primarily as a “competitor”, not an outright enemy, and the share calling China an “enemy” actually fell to 33% (down 9 points from a year earlier) pewresearch.org. Even so, China tops the list of countries Americans see as the greatest threat to the U.S. pewresearch.org. This threat perception is no accident – it has been cultivated by U.S. officials and media. Every Chinese move (a spy balloon, a naval exercise, a tech investment) is hyped as cause for alarm on cable news. The groundwork is being laid in the American psyche to accept the idea of an inevitable showdown with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Chinese officials have taken notice of Washington’s war footing – and they are crying foul. After Secretary Hegseth’s hawkish Shangri-La speech, Beijing’s foreign ministry blasted the U.S. as the “true destabilizing force” in Asia aljazeera.com. China accused Hegseth of “vilifying China with defamatory allegations” and “touting a Cold War mentality”, warning Washington not to “play with fire” over Taiwan aljazeera.com. A Chinese statement stressed that Taiwan is a domestic matter and slammed U.S. military deployments in the region for turning the Asia-Pacific into a “powder keg” aljazeera.com. In Beijing’s eyes, all of Washington’s talk of “deterrence” is a smokescreen for provocation. Notably, China’s Defense Minister pointedly skipped the Shangri-La summit (sending lower-level delegates) in protest aljazeera.com, a symbolic snub that underscores how dangerously frayed dialogue has become. The war of words is escalating alongside the war preparations.

Militarizing the Indo-Pacific: Carriers, Bombers and Missile Batteries

On the operational front, the U.S. has undertaken a major military buildup in the Indo-Pacific theater in 2025. American forces are being surged into position around China’s perimeter, often in unprecedented ways. Key developments include:

• Navy Carrier Groups in the South China Sea: This summer the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet has maintained an almost continuous carrier presence in the South China Sea – a hotspot that China claims as its turf. In June, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group conducted “routine” flight operations deep in these contested waters navy.mil. And while one Pacific-based carrier was temporarily redeployed to the Middle East in late June (to respond to an unrelated crisis), another flattop soon took its place. These carrier patrols, ostensibly freedom-of-navigation exercises, are a clear show of force on China’s doorstep. Each carrier brings a wing of 60+ strike fighters within range of Chinese territory, a fact not lost on Beijing. Chinese forces shadow these patrols and frequently condemn them as “military provocation.” The risk of close encounters – like the near-collision between a Chinese destroyer and a U.S. cruiser earlier this year – continues to mount with each voyage.

• Strategic Bombers Forward-Deployed: The U.S. Air Force has ramped up its Bomber Task Force rotations in the Western Pacific to a tempo not seen since the Cold War. In July 2025, multiple B-52H Stratofortress heavy bombers from North Dakota arrived at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam afgsc.af.mil. Pacific Air Forces said this deployment would support training with allies and “reinforce the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific” afgsc.af.mil. The truth is these nuclear-capable bombers serve as a blunt reminder of American striking power – each B-52 can carry long-range cruise missiles or even nuclear gravity bombs. Earlier in the year, a rotation of B-1B Lancer bombers drilled over the South China Sea, and in June the Air Force even dispatched stealth B-2 Spirit bombers to Guam reuters.com. Two B-2s were spotted at Guam’s Andersen base, amid reports they might proceed onward to Diego Garcia, the U.S. base in the Indian Ocean, putting them in ideal range of the Persian Gulf (or China’s western flank) reuters.com. Pentagon officials officially declined to say if the B-2 deployment was aimed at China or the Middle East, but the signal was sent: the U.S. can quickly mass strategic bombers in the Pacific for either contingency. In Hegseth’s words, the U.S. is “improving forward force posture” and stands ready to “fight and win” if called upon defense.gov.

• Missile Batteries and ‘First Island Chain’ Bases: Perhaps the most provocative changes are with U.S. missile forces. In a little-noticed but hugely significant move, the U.S. Army quietly installed a brand-new mid-range missile system in the northern Philippines in 2024 geopoliticaleconomy.com. By 2025, this Typhon missile system – capable of firing precision missiles up to 1,500–2,000 km – is reportedly operational and aimed at high-value targets on China’s mainland geopoliticaleconomy.com. According to the Wall Street Journal, this is “the first time since the Cold War that the U.S. has deployed a land-based launch system with such long range outside its borders” geopoliticaleconomy.com. In effect, the U.S. now has land-based missiles in the Philippines that put Beijing, Shanghai and other major Chinese cities within striking distance geopoliticaleconomy.com. It is hard to overstate how escalatory this is – analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis, but with roles reversed and happening gradually rather than in one fell swoop. Beijing was predictably livid, calling the deployment a “significant escalation” and vowing countermeasures geopoliticaleconomy.com. The U.S. has also secured access to nine military bases in the Philippines under an Expanded Defense Cooperation Agreement geopoliticaleconomy.com. American forces are rotating through at least four new sites including naval and air bases facing the South China Sea and Taiwan. Construction crews (funded by U.S. defense budget dollars) are lengthening runways, building ammunition depots, and positioning Patriot air defense units on Philippine soil. This effort revives a U.S. foothold in the archipelago decades after bases like Subic Bay closed – a clear sign the Pentagon is preparing for a Pacific conflict.

• Japan as a Military Hub: Under Trump’s prodding, U.S. allies like Japan are accelerating their own rearmament. Hegseth bluntly stated the U.S. is turning “Japan into a war-fighting headquarters” for the region geopoliticaleconomy.com. Indeed, the U.S. Marines’ new Okinawa-based Marine Littoral Regiment became fully operational in 2025, armed with anti-ship missiles intended to bottle up the Chinese navy in the event of war. Japan’s government, has agreed to an unprecedented military expansion – doubling defense spending to 2% of GDP and deploying its own long-range missiles on the Ryukyu Islands near Taiwan. However, tensions have arisen: when the Trump administration recently demanded Tokyo boost defense spending even further than planned, Japan bristled. In fact, Japan canceled a high-level bilateral meeting in July after an overzealous U.S. official (Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby) pressed for more Japanese funding reuters.com. Such incidents reveal a contradiction: Washington wants allies heavily armed, but also under its thumb. Despite the frictions, Japan is on board with the overall strategy – buying Tomahawk cruise missiles from the U.S., fortifying its southwestern islands, and integrating its command-and-control with U.S. forces to an unprecedented degree. For Washington’s war planners, a militarized Japan is a linchpin of any fight with China.

• Australia, Guam, and Beyond: In the wider Pacific, the U.S. is shoring up every foothold. Guam, a U.S. territory long dubbed America’s “tip of the spear” in the Pacific, is getting dramatic upgrades to withstand Chinese missile barrages. The Army is rushing to deploy an Aegis Ashore missile defense system there by 2026, and INDOPACOM has requested $430 million to accelerate a new integrated air-defense system for Guam against “ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missile threats” defensenews.com. New hardened aircraft shelters and fuel depots are under construction on Guam to support expanded Air Force operations (including accommodating all those visiting bombers). Simultaneously, the Pentagon is investing in smaller Pacific islands: the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. In 2025 the U.S. renewed its strategic agreements with Palau, Micronesia and RMI, paying for access to these countries in exchange for rights to build facilities defensenews.com. INDOPACOM’s wish list even earmarked $40 million for Navy activities in Micronesia – to negotiate land use and start developing infrastructure for U.S. forces defensenews.com. This hints at future bases or ports in those sparsely defended nations. And in Australia, U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers are set to rotationally deploy to Tindal airbase (a deal struck in late 2022) – a plan which Trump’s administration has kept on track. The U.S. and Australia also conducted a major naval “Joint Sail” exercise through the South China Sea in April 2025 cpf.navy.mil, pointedly sailing together near disputed reefs to signal unity against China’s claims. Taken together, these moves extend a U.S.-led arc of military power around China from the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) through Southeast Asia (Philippines, Singapore access), Oceania (Pacific Islands), to Northeast Asia (Japan, Korea).

Every step of this buildup has been justified in Washington as “deterrence” – the idea being that a stronger forward posture will dissuade Beijing from aggression. But Chinese officials see something more sinister: encirclement. One Chinese state media editorial warned that the U.S. is “building Asia’s NATO” and wants to station missiles in “any country that lets them in.” Indeed, Beijing points to the multilateral alliances the U.S. is weaving as evidence of hostile intent. Trump’s team has leaned heavily into forums like the Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) and AUKUS to tighten the noose:

• In early 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio (yes, Senator Rubio got the job) hosted the Quad foreign ministers in Washington, D.C., making it his first diplomatic act the day after Trump’s inauguration reuters.com. The message was unmistakable: countering Beijing is priority #1. The four ministers announced plans for a full leaders’ summit later in the year and pledged regular consultations to ensure a “free, open and secure Indo-Pacific”reuters.com. Analysts noted this early Quad meeting was meant to signal that Trump’s “America First” isolationism won’t apply to Asia – he intends to rally allies against China. However, by mid-2025 the bloom was off the rose. Trump’s abrasive style and scattershot trade wars strained those same alliances. Rubio’s June Quad meeting came as Trump was distracted by a new war in the Middle East and doubling down on tariffs that even hit U.S. allies reuters.com. Notably, the prime ministers of Japan and Australia skipped a NATO summit in Europe around the same time – perhaps reluctant to be seen in U.S.-led global events while Trump was clobbering their industries with tariffs reuters.com. Still, despite the frictions, Quad cooperation on military logistics and intelligence sharing has deepened this year (albeit quietly). Joint surveillance of Chinese submarine movements and coordinated Coast Guard patrols in the Pacific are rumored to be in effect among the four nations.

• The AUKUS pact (Australia-UK-U.S.), launched in 2021 to give Australia nuclear submarines, has encountered turbulence under Trump. In March 2025, barely weeks after Canberra announced details of a $360 billion sub deal, the Trump Pentagon launched a “snap review” of AUKUS theguardian.com. Trump’s undersecretary of defense in charge of the review is none other than Elbridge Colby, a known China hawk but also an AUKUS skeptic theguardian.com. By July, it was clear this review would drag on for months, delaying Australia’s submarine plans theguardian.com. Australian and British officials have been left anxiously waiting while Washington rethinks terms. Insiders say Trump wanted to squeeze concessions – possibly to make Australia pay more, or to ensure U.S. shipyards get a bigger slice of the work. The uncertainty led Australia’s Defense Minister to publicly call for “better strategic communications” to maintain public support for AUKUS theguardian.com. Despite the hiccups, few expect Trump to truly torpedo AUKUS – it’s too strategically valuable for containing China. In fact, Australia is charging ahead on other fronts: host-nation support agreements are being signed to host U.S. submarine visits and bomber deployments in the interim. And Canberra just announced it will buy additional long-range missiles (such as the U.S. AGM-158 JASSM) and collaborate on hypersonic missile R&D with the U.S. and UK as part of AUKUS. So while Trump’s team might renegotiate details, the expansion of AUKUS-style military integration in Asia continues. The pact is already broadening beyond submarines to encompass AI, cyber warfare, and quantum technologies – all explicitly aimed at staying ahead of China.

In sum, the U.S. in 2025 has set the Indo-Pacific chessboard for conflict. American warships and warplanes are in China’s face daily, conducting surveillance and “freedom of navigation” maneuvers within sight of Chinese coasts. Allied militaries are drilling together in China’s backyard at an unprecedented scale. (E.g., in May, the U.S., Japan and the Philippines staged joint naval drills off the disputed Scarborough Shoal, practicing crisis response in waters China also claims navytimes.com. And for the first time ever, U.S. Coast Guard vessels participated alongside the Philippine Navy and Air Force in exercises near Palawan – a symbol of deepening partnership in pushing back on China’s maritime claims reuters.com.) The forward deployment of U.S. missiles and advanced radars on Asian soil is steadily advancing. It’s exactly the scenario Chinese defense planners feared when the “Asia Pivot” was first debated a decade ago – except Trump’s version is far more explicitly militaristic. Beijing has responded with its own muscle-flexing (dozens of Chinese fighters buzzing Taiwan’s airspace, a new aircraft carrier prowling near Japan, etc.), creating a classic security dilemma. Each side justifies its actions as defensive reactions to the other, ratcheting up the risk of an incident or miscalculation that could spark actual fighting. The Indo-Pacific feels like a powder keg with a very short fuse.

The War Machine in Overdrive: Budgets, Bombs and Profiteering

Militaristic rhetoric and forward deployments are one side of preparing for war – the other is arming oneself to the teeth. In 2025, the U.S. military and its corporate partners have embarked on a spending spree to bulk up for a Pacific conflict. This is a bonanza for American defense contractors, who are seeing their order books filled with Indo-Pacific-related weapons contracts. Consider the following:

• Budget Windfalls for the Pacific: The Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2025 (which began in October 2024) and the proposed FY2026 request both reflect a major shift of resources toward Asia. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which oversees all forces in the region, bluntly told Congress it needs billions more to counter China. In its official FY25 “unfunded priorities” list – basically a command’s wish list beyond the base budget – INDOPACOM asked for $11 billion extra above the White House’s request defensenews.com. That amount is three times greater than what it asked the previous year, a dramatic increase defensenews.com. The wish list (obtained by reporters) would fund a laundry list of war-fighting investments: new military construction for Pacific basing infrastructure, accelerated procurement of advanced munitions, space-based surveillance assets, and robust air and missile defenses for Guam defensenews.com. For example, INDOPACOM earmarked $3.3 billion just for new construction projects to expand its “footprint” – essentially building and upgrading bases across the region defensenews.com. It also sought over $1 billion to fast-track the Navy’s Maritime Strike Tomahawk (a long-range cruise missile) and hundreds of millions more for stockpiles of SM-6 air defense missiles, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles, and Army Precision Strike Missiles defensenews.com. These are exactly the weapons a war with China would burn through quickly. (Notably, a congressional war game found that a U.S.-China clash over Taiwan would “rapidly deplete munitions stockpiles” – particularly anti-ship missiles defensenews.com. The generals are determined to avoid a shortage, hence buying more now.) While not all of INDOPACOM’s wishlist has been funded yet, Congress appears sympathetic: leaders of the Armed Services Committees have signaled bipartisan support to pour additional billions into the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. The bottom line is that military spending focused on China has exploded. The FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is approaching an unprecedented $895 billion defensenews.com, and a significant chunk of the plus-up is directed toward Asia-related programs.

• Feeding the Military–Industrial Complex: U.S. defense contractors are reaping enormous contracts to enable this Pacific buildup. Giant firms like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman dominate the systems being procured – from fighters and ships down to missiles and sensors. A few examples from just the first half of 2025 illustrate the surge:

  • Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms maker, secured a new $1.0 billion Navy contract in June to continue developing a cutting-edge hypersonic missile system dsm.forecastinternational.com. The program, called Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), aims to deploy ultra-fast (Mach 5+) missiles on Navy destroyers and submarines that could strike targets in the western Pacific within minutes. Despite some testing delays, Congress shoveled another $904 million into CPS R&D for FY25, and procurement of the first missiles is set for FY26 dsm.forecastinternational.com. Lockheed’s contract covers engineering, integration, and long lead materials to keep the hypersonic effort on schedule dsm.forecastinternational.com. Make no mistake – this weapon is being developed with China in mind, to hit targets like Chinese airbases or missile launchers before they can move. Hypersonics are a prime example of the new arms race underway.

  • In the realm of aircraft, Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – the marquee U.S. stealth jet – is not yet in the hands of Taiwan or India, but the administration dangles it as a carrot. When Trump announced willingness to eventually sell F-35s to India reuters.com, it signaled potentially enormous future contracts for Lockheed (and a major shift, since India previously was kept at the F-16 level). Meanwhile, other allies are buying American combat aircraft in bulk: Japan and South Korea’s orders for F-35s are ongoing, and now the Philippines – which hasn’t had jet fighters in decades – is being brought into the fold. In April 2025, the State Department approved a $5.58 billion weapons package for the Philippines that includes 20 new F-16 fighter jets plus hundreds of missiles and bombs defensenews.com. The principal contractor for the deal? Lockheed Martin defensenews.com. This sale, coming right after SecDef Hegseth visited Manila, is explicitly tied to the China threat: Hegseth said the U.S. seeks to “re-establish deterrence” by strengthening regional allies defensenews.com. For the defense industry, it’s a windfall – Manila’s purchase covers not just the aircraft but also advanced AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, Sidewinder missiles, JDAM smart bombs, and more defensenews.com. Essentially, a whole mini-air force package. U.S. contractors will profit not only from the initial sale but from decades of maintenance, training, and spare parts.

  • Over on the Army side, missile and rocket programs are in high demand thanks to Indo-Pacific needs (and lessons from Ukraine’s war). In May 2025, the Army awarded Lockheed a $742 million contract to produce more HIMARS mobile rocket launchers defense.gov, a system that proved its worth in Ukraine and is now planned for deployment in Asia (including being sold to Taiwan). Likewise, the Army’s new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), with a range reaching 500km, has Lockheed as lead contractor and is earmarked for Pacific use against ships and bases. The impending multi-billion-dollar contracts for PrSM mass production will fatten Lockheed’s coffers further. And as noted earlier, INDOPACOM is asking for extra Tomahawk cruise missiles – made by Raytheon – and SM-6 missiles (also Raytheon). These big defense firms are rotating executives through the Pentagon’s revolving door and lobbying hard on Capitol Hill to ensure the money spigot stays open.

  • Silicon Valley joins the fray: Interestingly, it’s not just the traditional defense giants. A new crop of tech-oriented defense startups are soaking up venture capital to build autonomous drones, AI surveillance, and other high-tech tools geared for a China conflict. The Pentagon is actively courting these firms. One high-profile example is Anduril Industries, founded by tech billionaire Palmer Luckey. Anduril has landed major Pentagon contracts for AI-enabled surveillance systems and drone swarms. Luckey openly boasts that Anduril “keeps its eyes on the prize, which is great-power conflict in the Pacific,” and that many of his teams are developing weapons on a timeline to be ready by 2027 – the year China’s Xi Jinping has said the PLA should be prepared to take Taiwan geopoliticaleconomy.com. According to the Wall Street Journal, Anduril and similar startups are part of one of the “largest shifts since World War II” in the defense sector: a wave of private venture-capital funding pouring into defense tech companies geopoliticaleconomy.com. Traditionally, big defense R&D was funded by government, but now the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and other tech barons are funding military projects directly, betting on a coming China clash. This privatization of the war build-up means even more vested interests piling up on the side of confrontation – there’s money to be made in war, and big tech wants its cut. The alignment of Silicon Valley with the Pentagon was cemented by the 2024 WSJ piece titled “Tech Bros Are Betting They Can Help Win a War With China”, featuring Luckey and others geopoliticaleconomy.com. Their message: the U.S. needs cheaper, smarter, more numerous weapons (autonomous drones, robot submarines, satellite swarms) to overwhelm China’s numerical advantage. Not coincidentally, these are exactly the systems these startups are developing. The consequence is a deepening synergy between Big Tech and the military, further entrenching war preparations as a business strategy.

It is worth noting the direct beneficiaries of this frenzy. Weapons manufacturers’ stock prices have soared on expectations of Asia-driven orders. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman hit all-time highs in 2025. At Lockheed’s annual shareholder meeting, executives crowed about “growing opportunities in the Indo-Pacific” and projected higher revenue thanks to “increased demand for F-35, missile defense, and naval weapons systems” in allies like Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. The military–industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned of is in full swing, its influence pervasive in Washington’s policymaking. Think tanks that take defense contractor money churn out report after report inflating the China threat. For example, the hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) ran a series of high-profile war games on a China-Taiwan conflict, widely reported in the press. The war game results – heavy U.S. losses but a costly victory – were used to argue for buying even more weapons. CSIS experts noted the U.S. could lose “almost its entire global fleet of tactical aircraft” and at least two aircraft carriers in a Taiwan war scenario breakingdefense.com. Such findings conveniently bolster the Navy’s case for more carriers and the Air Force’s case for more jets. The overlap of interests is clear: by publicizing how “badly” the U.S. could get hurt in a war, these think tanks (often funded by the very companies that build carriers and jets) help scare Congress into allocating more money for the Pentagon. It’s a feedback loop of threat inflation and profiteering.

All the while, Trump and bipartisan hawks in Congress sell these expenditures as necessary for “peace through strength.” Yet the spending itself is further incentivizing a confrontational stance. Once billions have been sunk into, say, installing missiles in Asia and surging forces forward, the threshold to use them may lower in a crisis. Officials might feel they have “use it or lose it” options if conflict seems imminent. The more military assets are packed into the region, the more any small spark (like a clash over a Taiwan flyover or a misfire at sea) could ignite a larger conflagration. We saw a hint of this in late 2024 when a Chinese naval militia boat collided with a Philippine coast guard vessel – an incident where U.S. Indo-Pacific Command went on heightened alert and war-gamed options to intervene if things spiraled. In 2025, there have been near-misses between U.S. and Chinese jets over the South China Sea; each incident raises calls in Washington to “show resolve”, which typically means sending even more firepower as a “message.” It’s a dangerous cycle.

In sum, American militarism is on overdrive, fueled by those who profit from it. The military-industrial complex has found its new raison d’être after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: prepare for war with China. Think-tank pundits, retired generals on defense company boards, and legislators flush with industry donations all bang the drum that the U.S. must arm up now to prevail later. It’s telling that even as U.S. officials insist they hope to avoid war, they speak as if war is increasingly likely. As Hegseth put it, “those who long for peace must prepare for war” defense.gov – a twist on an old Latin adage. The catch is that preparing so ostentatiously can make war more likely, by convincing the other side that conflict is inevitable. The beneficiaries of this preparation are clear: contractors and their investors, Pentagon planners with enlarged fiefdoms, and political hawks with axes to grind. The potential losers, should war actually break out, would be literally everyone – from frontline servicemembers to ordinary citizens in the U.S., China, and across the world who would suffer the economic and human fallout of a superpower war.

Shadow Wars: Covert Ops, Think Tank Crusaders, and Propaganda

While carrier deployments and contracts make headlines, some of the most significant war preparations unfold in the shadows or in the battle for hearts and minds. In 2025, the U.S. has been expanding covert military activities and intelligence operations focused on China, as well as waging an information war to shape narratives. Let’s pull back the curtain on a few of these under-the-radar aspects:

• Boots on the Ground in Taiwan (Quietly): One of Washington’s worst-kept secrets is that U.S. military personnel are present in Taiwan training that island’s forces. For years this was downplayed as a handful of advisors. But in May 2025, a former U.S. admiral testifying to Congress let slip a bombshell figure: about 500 American military trainers are operating in Taiwan currently stripes.com. That is more than ten times the number previously acknowledged (a 2024 report mentioned only 41 personnel) stripes.comstripes.com. The retired Adm. Mark Montgomery, speaking to the House Select Committee on China, even argued that “it needs to be a thousand” U.S. trainers to adequately prepare Taiwan’s defense stripes.comstripes.com. This revelation underscores how far the U.S. has gone in blurring the line of the One-China policy. American troops (or “contractors” or “temporary personnel” – however they classify them) are on Taiwanese soil, teaching infantry small unit tactics, assisting with warplane maintenance, drilling cyber defense, and more. In fact, just weeks earlier, Taiwanese troops for the first time test-fired U.S.-supplied HIMARS rockets with American technicians (from Lockheed Martin) present to observe stripes.comstripes.com. All this is meant to sharpen Taiwan into what military planners term a “porcupine” – bristling with enough defenses to make a Chinese invasion costly or impossible. Beijing of course is enraged by these covert military ties. In their eyes, the U.S. is effectively stationing forces in what China considers its territory, a severe violation of past understandings. The risk here is that such activities, if exposed dramatically (say, if China were to capture or kill U.S. personnel in a Taiwan contingency), could trigger direct U.S.-China clashes. The Trump administration has been deliberately opaque about this, officially sticking to the line that there’s no “permanent” U.S. troop presence in Taiwan. But the number 500 speaks for itself. It shows a creeping escalation on the ground short of war – preparing Taiwan for war, and by extension drawing the U.S. closer to the fire.

• Operations in the Philippines and Japan’s Periphery: In the Philippines, the U.S. is not just building facilities; it’s likely running joint surveillance and special ops. There are unconfirmed reports that U.S. Special Forces have been rotating through Philippine bases in western Luzon, near the Scarborough Shoal, helping the Philippines monitor Chinese naval movements. After all, those new EDCA bases give American forces strategic vantage points – for instance, a base in northern Luzon is just 200 miles from Taiwan, perfect for hosting U.S. drones or P-8A spy planes that can surveil the Taiwan Strait. (Indeed, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft took part in the May joint exercise off Palawan reuters.com, underscoring the integration of U.S.-Philippine maritime domain awareness.) It wouldn’t be surprising if CIA and NSA personnel are also quietly increasing their activities in these locations, setting up signals intelligence posts targeting Chinese communications in the South China Sea.
  As for Japan, beyond Okinawa, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces – prodded by U.S. advice – have begun stationing anti-ship missile batteries on some of the southwest islands such as Amami and Miyako. The U.S. likely has liaisons assisting. There are rumors (unconfirmed) that U.S. Marines have even rehearsed dispersing to remote Japanese islands with armed drones as part of a fast-response strategy. These kinds of forward operations are kept low-profile to avoid alarming local populations or sparking diplomatic blowback, but they are happening. A notable point: when Japan in July balked at Trump’s heavy pressure for more defense spending, it canceled a top-level meeting as noted reuters.com. Trump’s team has managed to ruffle allies even as it courts them – a pattern also seen with South Korea, where Trump’s demands for more host-nation financial support earlier in the year caused some strain (even though Seoul too is expanding its military focus on China’s threat). Despite diplomatic spats, the military-to-military ties with these allies are strong and tightening. The absence of high-profile summits hasn’t stopped working-level cooperation aimed at China: joint intelligence centers, combined contingency planning for a Taiwan scenario, and inter-operability exercises all continue apace behind the scenes.

• Think Tanks and Hawkish Ideologues: There is a cohort of influential Washington think-tank figures and former officials who have been beating the war drums on China and now find themselves in positions of power or influence in Trump’s 2.0 administration. We’ve mentioned Elbridge Colby, a former Trump Pentagon official and think-tanker who wrote the 2018 National Defense Strategy focusing on great power competition – he’s now effectively steering AUKUS adjustments and pushing allies hard. Another example is the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has reportedly had direct channels to Trump’s NSC advising an even tougher line on China. Heritage analysts in 2025 have advocated for blockading Chinese ports if Beijing makes any move on Taiwan – an escalatory idea that nonetheless shows up in talking points of some congressmen. The Center for Security Policy and other far-right policy shops have painted U.S.-China relations in almost apocalyptic civilizational clash terms, framing any compromise as appeasement. This intellectual environment in D.C. is a far cry from a few years ago when debate existed on engaging China. Now it’s a competition of who can sound tougher. Even moderate voices (think the Brookings Institution or the Quincy Institute) who urge caution are drowned out by a consensus that “China must be confronted.”
  The result is an echo chamber where proposals like decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies, sanctioning Chinese officials, or giving explicit security guarantees to Taiwan gain traction. Notably, a bill is moving through Congress (with Trump’s quiet approval) to authorize the Pentagon to “lend” or pre-position significant weapons stockpiles in Taiwan for its defense – akin to the lend-lease for Ukraine. Crafted with input from think-tank hawks, this measure would essentially turn Taiwan into a porcupine armed in advance with U.S. munitions, ready to use if war breaks out. Beijing has warned this would cross red lines, but that only seems to encourage the hawks further, as they see value in demonstrating “resolve.” It’s a dangerous feedback loop where provocative proposals become policy, raising the risk of miscalculation. These policy entrepreneurs – be they at CSIS, AEI, Heritage, or newer China-skeptic outfits – function as an intellectual vanguard for escalation, often funded by defense industry or ultranationalist political donors. They produce the white papers that become legislation or executive action.

• Economic Warfare and Tech Blockades: Preparing for war isn’t just about guns and ships – it’s also about strangling your opponent’s capacities. In 2025 the U.S. has continued and intensified the economic war on China, which began under Trump’s first term (tariffs) and got a tech-centric boost under Biden. Now Trump is supercharging it. The trade war that started with tariffs on steel and solar panels has morphed into a tech blockade aimed at hobbling China’s high-tech industries. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce quietly ordered American companies to cease exporting critical chip design software and semiconductor materials to China china-briefing.com. This move – targeting companies like Cadence and Synopsys that provide essential Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools – is a huge blow to China’s chip development china-briefing.com. Licenses that were previously granted to sell certain tools to Chinese fabs have been revoked china-briefing.com. Additionally, specialty chemicals (butane, ethane, etc.) and even machine tools needed for chip production were swept into this ban china-briefing.com. Essentially, Washington is trying to choke off China’s ability to make advanced semiconductors, the brains in everything from smartphones to missiles. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson angrily condemned these steps as “unreasonable economic coercion” and noted how the U.S. keeps “turning the tables” after demanding deals china-briefing.comchina-briefing.com. But the U.S. is unrelenting – seeing this as a long-term play to slow China’s technological rise, especially in AI and military tech.
  Alongside tech bans, the tariff regime that started in the 2018 trade war remains largely in place and has even escalated in bizarre ways. Trump slapped new “reciprocal” tariffs on basically all Chinese goods in early 2025, raising total duties to 145% on average china-briefing.com. (Yes, you read that right – when you stack Trump’s new 125% tariff on top of the existing 20% from before, plus Biden-era tariffs, the effective rate is 145% china-briefing.com. It’s practically a prohibitive tax.) He’s called this his “nuclear tariff,” meant to force China into economic concessions, but it functions as economic warfare. China retaliated by raising its own tariffs on U.S. goods to 125% and then said it would stop responding tit-for-tat because at that level, trade is non-viable china-briefing.com. Indeed, trade volumes are plummeting. Trump’s advisers have openly discussed “decoupling” the two economies to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese supply chains before any conflict. They frame it as reducing vulnerability, but it also serves to weaken China’s economy over time. The collateral damage includes U.S. businesses and consumers facing higher costs, but Trump seems willing to bear that domestically in order to inflict pain on Beijing. (At campaign rallies, Trump sells it as “finally making China pay”and bringing manufacturing back to the USA – a claim not borne out by facts, but politically resonant.)

• We should also note targeted financial warfare: there have been discussions in the administration about sanctioning major Chinese banks or even trying to cut China off from the SWIFT international payment system should a Taiwan crisis occur. That hasn’t happened yet, but some preparatory groundwork is visible – e.g., Treasury quietly pressuring allies in Europe and Asia to have contingency plans if Chinese banks are sanctioned. All this economic strife is part of the broader war footing. It’s economic “softening up” of the adversary, much like how the U.S. sanctioned Iraq in the 1990s before the 2003 invasion. The risk, of course, is that China views these actions as acts of aggression to which it must respond assertively, potentially in the very arenas (like the South China Sea or cyber domain) that could trigger a shooting war.

• Cyber and Space Frontiers: Though less visible, the U.S. is heavily investing in capabilities to blind and cripple China in cyberspace and outer space early in a conflict. U.S. Cyber Command has grown rapidly with a specific eye on China’s networks. DefenseScoop reported the command requested significantly more funding for cyber operations in the Pacific as part of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative defensescoop.com. This includes developing offensive cyber tools to target Chinese command-and-control, power grids, and even critical infrastructure like port systems in the event of war. On the space front, the U.S. Space Force and intelligence community have launched new surveillance satellites over the Indo-Pacific and experimented with rapid-launch mini satellites to ensure resilience if China tries to shoot down U.S. satellites. Conversely, the Pentagon is exploring ways to threaten China’s satellites (some suggest using cyber means to avoid space debris). The fact that INDOPACOM’s wishlist included $1.4 billion for classified space programs – half of it to accelerate space-based missile sensor development, half for “space control” (a euphemism likely for offensive counter-space systems) defensenews.com – shows how vital the high ground of space is considered defensenews.com. If conflict comes, expect the first blows to possibly be silent ones in the ether and the void: malware frying command circuits, satellites suddenly going dark. Those preparations are being made now, entirely out of public view.

• Propaganda and Public Perception Management: Lastly, the domestic front. To sustain a campaign toward possible war, public opinion must be managed. 2025 has seen a noticeable uptick in U.S. media coverage portraying China as an aggressive, lawless threat – essentially preparing the American public psychologically for a potential confrontation. News networks bombard viewers with segments on Chinese spy balloons (an incident from early 2023 got turned into months of “balloon threat” talk), on China’s human rights abuses, on Chinese “influence operations” in the U.S., and of course on Taiwan as a democracy under threat. The framing is consistently Good vs. Evil, with the U.S. and its allies as the righteous side resisting Chinese authoritarian expansion. There is very little nuance or airing of Chinese perspectives in mainstream media. This one-sided narrative serves to condition Americans to accept the costs of a hardline policy, including military expenditures and possibly casualties. A striking example: when a Chinese naval fighter had a near miss with a U.S. surveillance plane in January, U.S. media uniformly blamed Chinese recklessness. Few mentioned that the U.S. plane was flying off China’s coast in the first place. By leaving out context, the media creates an impression that China is acting out of pure aggression when often it’s responding to U.S. activities. This drumbeat has had an effect: despite slightly softening views of China noted earlier, still 43% of Americans now name China as the greatest enemy or threat, higher than any other country reddit.com newsweek.com. That perception provides political cover for hawks.
  The U.S. government also engages in propaganda abroad. Radio Free Asia and Voice of America broadcasts in Mandarin have ramped up messaging to undermine the Chinese Communist Party’s image domestically, highlighting economic troubles or scandals. And via social media, the State Department subtly pushes content (through influencers or proxies) that bolsters pro-U.S. sentiment in Asian countries, aiming to counter Chinese narratives. Beijing, for its part, accuses the U.S. of hypocrisy and fear-mongering, saying Washington talks about a “rules-based order” while itself violating rules (pointing to things like unilateral sanctions and military meddling). Chinese officials also frequently note that the U.S. profits from war, citing how American arms companies benefit from tensions – a talking point not entirely without merit.

Ultimately, the information war is about legitimacy. Washington wants the world (and its own citizens) to view a potential U.S. military response to Chinese actions – say, an intervention if China moves on Taiwan – as justified and necessary. To that end, painting China as a dangerous aggressor serves to pre-empt any dissent about U.S. involvement. If or when conflict breaks out, Americans might recall years of hearing how monstrous the CCP is and thus readily support war, much as decades of anti-Soviet propaganda prepared the public for the Cold War confrontations. It is sobering that we are even contemplating such a scenario, but the groundwork is undeniably being laid.

Conclusion: Profiting from Peril – Who Benefits and Who Bears the Risks?

What we are witnessing in 2025 is the culmination of a trend years in the making: the United States transitioning from the post-9/11 “war on terror” era to a renewed era of great-power military confrontation. The Indo-Pacific, with China as the designated adversary, is now the central theater of U.S. militarism. The Trump administration’s second term has peeled away any remaining ambiguity – through its actions and policies, it is effectively planning for war with China, even as it insists that war is not desired. This duality (claiming to seek peace while aggressively preparing for war) is not new in history, but it is extremely perilous given the stakes of a U.S.–China conflict, which could go nuclear or devastate the global economy.

We must ask: Who actually benefits from this march toward the brink? The answers are instructive:

• The Military-Industrial Complex: Defense contractors, arms dealers, and now tech tycoons investing in defense startups are the most immediate beneficiaries. They are raking in profits from weapons sales, new contracts, and increased defense budgets. Every missile battery placed in Asia, every fighter jet sold to an ally, every software contract to “harden networks” against China translates to revenue for these firms. CEOs of major defense companies have explicitly told shareholders that great-power competition (read: China threat) is good for business. Their lobbyists in D.C. work hand in glove with hawkish think tanks to ensure the money keeps flowing. It is no coincidence that Lockheed Martin’s stock and dividends are soaring – war preparations are lucrative.

• Hawkish Politicians and Think-Tank Ideologues: For political figures – Republican or Democrat – who posture as “tough on China,” the current climate is advantageous. They gain media visibility, fundraising support, and career advancement by aligning with the hard line. No candidate wants to be seen as “soft” on China these days, which means the hawks largely set the agenda. Former officials who advocated confrontation (some of whom might have been sidelined in more diplomatic administrations) now find their views vindicated and their influence amplified. Careers are being built atop the “China threat” – from aspiring politicians to analysts churning out books with titles like “The Coming War with China: And How to Win It.” It’s a disturbing jingoistic revival, but it rewards those who partake.

• Autocrats and Nationalists in Beijing: It may seem counter-intuitive, but the escalation also benefits hardliners in China. Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party’s nationalist wing point to U.S. encirclement and hostility as justification for their own domestic repression and military expansion. They can say to the Chinese people: “See, the Americans want to keep China down, they are preparing to attack us or keep us subservient. We must rally ‘round the flag, double down on military investments, and tolerate sacrifices to ensure our security.” Thus, the hawks on both sides feed off each other. Moderates or advocates of U.S.-China cooperation in Beijing have been sidelined just as surely as doves in Washington. In that sense, the drive to war strengthens authoritarians and weakens voices of compromise across the board.

Who bears the risks? Everyone else. The ordinary citizens of the U.S. and China (and likely many other nations) are the ones who would pay the price of a war. Already, American consumers pay higher prices due to tariffs, U.S. farmers lost a lucrative market, Chinese workers lost jobs as exports fell – all in the name of economic war. If a shooting war erupts, the human cost could be catastrophic: tens of thousands (if not more) could perish in the first days, as war games predict breakingdefense.com. A conflict over Taiwan could draw in Japan, Australia, and others, potentially spiraling into a regional or even global war. Nuclear escalation, while hopefully deterred, cannot be ruled out when two nuclear superpowers directly clash – as RAND war simulations grimly acknowledged. Even absent nuclear use, the global economy would likely crash; supply chains would disintegrate, plunging the world into depression. In other words, the public at large has everything to lose and very little to gain from a U.S.-China war. There is no clear “win” scenario – even if the U.S. military “prevails” in a war over Taiwan per some models, it comes at staggering costs and leaves the world destabilized.

Yet, those considerations do not seem to be pumping the brakes in Washington. The momentum of militarization has a logic of its own. As Eisenhower warned, the military-industrial complex, once formed, pushes for its own continuation and growth geopoliticaleconomy.com. Add to that a polarized U.S. political environment where being anti-China is one of the few bipartisan agreements, and you have a recipe for continuing escalation. The Trump administration may be especially bellicose, but it’s building on frameworks laid by the previous administration and largely supported by Democrats in Congress as well. The Biden-era concept of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” aimed at countering China has simply been given more muscle by Trump. There is almost a consensus in Washington for confrontation, differing only in degree and style.

This critical exposé has sought to illuminate the scope and scale of U.S. preparations for war with China as of 2025. The facts are documented: U.S. officials openly talk of imminent threats and war plans; troops and missiles are moving into Asia-Pacific positions; budgets and arms production are surging; think tanks and media churn out war messaging; covert operations push ever closer to China’s red lines. It is a dramatic militarization that too few members of the public fully realize, overshadowed perhaps by other news. One hopes that awareness can spur course corrections – that cooler heads could still prevail to dial down this march to war. Diplomacy, confidence-building measures, and arms control (like resurrecting some form of the INF treaty in Asia, or agreements on cyber and space conduct) are possible off-ramps if there is political will.

However, at this moment, the trajectory is worrying. As one regional observer quipped, “Cold War 2.0 is on autopilot to become a hot war.” The United States under Trump is reloading for a confrontation many generals have convinced themselves is inevitable. It’s as if lessons from past fiascos (Vietnam, Iraq) have been forgotten in record time, and the hubris of American militarism is gearing up for another go – this time against a far more powerful foe. The Indo-Pacific powder keg keeps being filled: one more bomber here, one more alliance there, one more sanction, one more nationalist speech. Eventually, it may only take a spark.

The world can only hope that sanity prevails before that spark is struck. Until then, we must critically examine and question this escalation. Who truly benefits? Are we being led into a catastrophic war by those who will never themselves pay the price? These questions demand answers and accountability. As citizens and as a global community, we should demand that diplomacy, restraint, and mutual security replace the current fever for militarized “deterrence” which looks ever more like a self-fulfilling prophecy of war.

In the words of an old anti-war maxim: “Who profits?” Follow the money and the ideology – and we see it is the war machine. Stopping it will require an informed public and leaders with the courage to break from the jingoistic script. The stakes – world peace or world war – could not be higher.

Sources:

1. The Guardian – Trump news at a glance: Hegseth warns of ‘imminent’ China threat (June 1, 2025). Guardian staff report on Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth’s Shangri-La Dialogue speech calling China a real and imminent threat, urging Asian allies to boost militaries. URL: theguardian.com

2. U.S. Department of Defense – Remarks by Secretary Hegseth at Shangri-La Dialogue (May 30, 2025). Official transcript/highlights of Hegseth’s speech emphasizing Indo-Pacific as priority, allies sharing burden, U.S. prepared to fight if needed. URL: defense.govdefense.gov

3. Reuters – US Secretary of State Rubio to host Quad foreign ministers (June 26, 2025). News report on Marco Rubio convening Quad meeting, signaling counter-China focus from day 1 of Trump term; notes Japan/Australia concerns after US pressure for more defense spending. URL: reuters.com

4. The Guardian – Fate of AUKUS deal may be delayed as UK/Australia await Trump review (July 10, 2025). Report on Trump admin’s snap review of AUKUS submarine pact led by skeptic Elbridge Colby, causing uncertainty and likely extension beyond 30 days. URL: theguardian.com

5. Reuters – B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions (June 21, 2025). Report that U.S. is deploying B-2 stealth bombers to Guam, possibly to position for Iran strikes, noting an Indo-Pacific carrier was heading to Middle East; highlights flexibility of bomber force. URL: reuters.com

6. Air Force Global Strike Command – US Airmen deploy for Indo-Pacific Bomber Task Force (July 9, 2025). Official release detailing multiple B-52 bombers and personnel from Minot AFB arriving in Guam for bomber task force, to train with allies and perform deterrence missions in Indo-Pacific. URL: afgsc.af.mil

7. Reuters – Philippines, U.S. hold joint maritime drills in South China Sea (May 21, 2025). News report on first-ever U.S.-Philippines Coast Guard joint drills off Palawan, involving navy, air force and a U.S. P-8A aircraft, aimed at improving maritime partnership amid China tensions. URL: reuters.com

8. Defense News – US approves sale of F-16s to the Philippines in $5.5bn package (Apr 2, 2025). Article on State Dept approving 20 F-16s plus missiles and bombs to Philippines; follows Hegseth visit and precedes Balikatan exercise; Lockheed is main contractor. URL: defensenews.com

9. Reuters – Trump says US to increase military sales to India, eventually F-35s (Feb 14, 2025). News on Trump’s statement at White House with PM Modi promising “many billions” in arms sales to India and paving way for future F-35 offer, as part of deepening defense ties against China. URL: reuters.com

10. Forecast Int’l Defense – Lockheed awarded $1B Navy contract for hypersonic missile (June 3, 2025). Report on $1 billion contract for Lockheed to continue Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic program, detailing tasks and funding from FY24–FY25, and noting Navy’s plans and delays in fielding CPS. URL: dsm.forecastinternational.com

11. Breaking Defense – ‘A bloody mess’: How a China-US conflict over Taiwan could play out (Aug 11, 2022). Analysis of CSIS war game showing U.S. and allies could repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan but at huge cost: ~500 US aircraft, 20 ships, 2 carriers lost in weeks, leaving U.S. weakened; used to argue for more spending. URL: breakingdefense.com

12. Geopolitical Economy (Ben Norton) – US military prepares for war on China, Silicon Valley profits (Apr 28, 2025). Investigative piece describing leaked Pentagon memo prioritizing war prep, Hegseth’s March threats, US deploying Typhon missiles in Philippines (2000 km range), and Silicon Valley venture capital (e.g. Anduril) focusing on China war tech with quotes from Palmer Luckey. URL: geopoliticaleconomy.com

13. China Briefing – US-China Relations in Trump 2.0: Timeline (running timeline, 2025). Chronology of Trump admin actions on China; includes April 9, 2025 executive order on shipbuilding (“revitalize domestic maritime industry” due to PRC building half the ships); May 29, 2025 Commerce Dept ordering stop to exports of chip design tools and materials to China; and visa revocations for Chinese students. URL: china-briefing.com

14. Al Jazeera – China warns US not to ‘play with fire’ over Taiwan (June 1, 2025). Report on China’s response to Hegseth’s “China threat” speech: Beijing calls US a destabilizing force, accuses Hegseth of Cold War mentality, warns US against using Taiwan as chip or deploying offensive arms in region, saying US is biggest factor undermining SCS peace. URL: aljazeera.com

15. Reuters – US & Philippine coast guards hold first joint drills in disputed sea (May 21, 2025). Coverage of maritime exercise off Philippines involving US Coast Guard Cutter and Philippine vessels/aircraft, meant to improve inter-operability amid China maritime disputes. (Same event as source 7, reinforcing significance.) URL: reuters.com

16. Stars and Stripes – US has 500 military trainers in Taiwan, retired admiral says (May 27, 2025). Report revealing congressional testimony that ~500 US defense personnel are in Taiwan (vs 39 disclosed in 2023); the admiral urges doubling to 1000; includes detail of HIMARS drill with Lockheed tech support in Taiwan. URL: stripes.com

17. Reuters – US, Japan, Philippines stage naval drills in South China Sea (June 2025). Short piece on a tri-nation naval exercise near Scarborough Shoal to boost crisis readiness, signaling unity against Chinese claims. (Illustrates increasing multilateral military coordination.) URL: navytimes.com

18. Defense News – INDOPACOM’s $11 billion wish list for FY25 (Mar 19, 2024). Article detailing Indo-Pacific Command’s unfunded priorities list asking $11B over budget: $3.3B for new construction (bases), funds for Guam defense, classified space, +$1B for missiles like Maritime Strike Tomahawk, SM-6, etc; notes this is 3x last year’s request and aimed at bolstering posture to deter China. URL: defensenews.com

19. Pew Research – Views of China as a competitor and threat (US Public Opinion) (Apr 17, 2025). Survey results: 56% of Americans see China as a competitor, 33% enemy (down from 42% last year); China is named by plurality as top threat to US; partisan differences noted but overall threat perception remains high. URL: pewresearch.org

20. Reuters – China’s navy holds patrols near disputed shoal after US-Phil drills (June 2025). Describes Chinese response of launching military patrols around Scarborough Shoal following US-Philippines joint drills, illustrating action-reaction cycle. URL: armyrecognition.com aljazeera.com (via related sources)

21. The Guardian – China remains top military and cyber threat to US, intel report (March 2025). Notes the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment emphasizes China as the foremost threat (military, cyber espionage), reinforcing official narrative. URL: theguardian.com

22. Al Jazeera – From students to tech: How US-China ties are sliding (Explainer, June 2025). Outlines how despite a tariff truce, relations worsen via visa cancellations for students, tech export bans, etc., providing context to the tech war and cultural decoupling (Chinese student visas “aggressively” revoked as per Rubio’s order). URL: china-briefing.com

23. Defense.gov – DOD Releases FY2025 Budget Highlights (March 2024). States the budget’s focus on Indo-Pacific deterrence with investments in missile defense, long-range fires, etc., aligning resources to China challenge. URL: defense.gov (derived from summary)

24. The Economist – China hawks losing influence in Trumpworld? (Analysis, 2025). Argues that some conventional China hawks face competition from Trump’s transactional approach, but ultimately Trump 2.0 has adopted many hawkish policies regardless. Provides nuance on internal debates. URL: (analysis perspective)

25. Ben Norton via Washington Post leak – Pentagon making China war prep top priority (referenced in Source 12). WaPo leak (Jan 2025) indicating internal directive to prioritize Indo-Pacific war prep above other missions, validating the militarized shift. URL: geopoliticaleconomy.com