As a planned May summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping approaches, the Trump administration in recent months has notably reversed course on its hawkish approach toward the communist regime by rolling back planned tariffs and investigations into hackers, as well as approving Chinese investments in sensitive technology and softening critical rhetoric. Experts say the strategy could endanger U.S. national security.

A Wall Street Journal report published Thursday noted that the White House is making a concerted effort to walk back its former aggressive stance toward Beijing that characterized the first Trump administration. The pattern emerged in earnest after Trump’s meeting with Xi last October in South Korea, with the administration announcing a pause on several tariffs on key Chinese imports, stopping “plans to penalize Chinese companies determined to be security risks to the U.S.,” reversing plans to impose sanctions on China’s Ministry of State Security after the communist spy agency hacked into U.S. telecom networks, and allowing Beijing to purchase advanced AI-powered microchips that could further its military capabilities.

In addition, the White House has ordered administration officials to “tone down their comments on China,” with WSJ reporting that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has notified his staff that they must get “his signoff for any China-related actions.”

The about-face has “alarmed some of Trump’s own national security aides” and is particularly noteworthy for how much the actions clash with the administration’s former strategy, which was marked by determined counter-espionage efforts, the sanctioning of Chinese tech companies, and the president calling the communist regime “antithetical to U.S. values and interests.” Observers say that the new approach is focused on laying the groundwork for a summit between Trump and Xi that will take place in China on May 14-15. A revised National Defense Strategy document published in January declared that “President Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China.”

The stark reversal in policy comes at a precarious time for the democratic island of Taiwan that sits just 80 miles off of China’s coast. The U.S. is currently in a far weaker position to defend Taiwan militarily if China decides to attempt an invasion, having expended thousands of munitions against Iran that will take three to eight years to replenish. In addition, Xi hosted Taiwanese opposition leader Cheng Li-wun in China on Friday, which the WSJ notes is an effort to “nudge the U.S. to the sidelines” and “absorb Taiwan peacefully — despite its threat to use force — and sees Cheng’s party, also known as the Kuomintang, or KMT, as its best course for dialogue and political influence.”

Experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Maginnis, who serves as Family Research Council’s senior fellow for National Security, say that the conciliatory approach will likely undermine America’s national security “if ‘stability’ becomes a euphemism for strategic complacency.”

“Diplomacy with China is necessary, and high-level talks can reduce miscalculation between two major powers,” he told The Washington Stand. “But any approach that pauses pressure on Beijing’s most sensitive sectors, eases scrutiny of Chinese investment, soft-pedals cyber intrusions, or downplays clear security risks would be unwise from a national security standpoint. Reuters has reported that the administration is indeed pursuing a more ‘stable’ relationship ahead of President Trump’s planned May meeting with Xi, though some significant restrictions still remain in place, including rules barring Chinese vehicle software and hardware from U.S. roads.”

Maginnis continued, “My concern is that the Chinese Communist Party does not think in short electoral cycles. It thinks in terms of long-term leverage, technological dominance, political control, and eventual strategic displacement of the United States. Beijing uses compromise tactically while continuing to pursue hegemony, and past American leaders too often mistook engagement for conversion. In the new book, ‘The New AI Cold War,’ I make the related point that China now sees artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, and standards-setting as instruments of state power, not simply commerce. In that framework, easing pressure without enforceable reciprocity risks helping an adversary consolidate the very tools it will later use against us.”

Maginnis further argued that “the wise course is not gratuitous confrontation, but disciplined realism: talk to Beijing, yes, but verify everything, protect critical technologies, maintain investment screening, punish cyber theft, preserve supply-chain resilience, and never confuse a photo-op summit with a change in the CCP’s long-term objectives. A stable peace is desirable, but it will only endure if it is backed by strength, vigilance, and clear-eyed recognition of what China is trying to become.”

Gordon Chang, an author and distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, also warned against soft-handed policies toward Beijing. “For decades, we Americans have thought China would reciprocate our friendly gestures,” he told TWS. “That approach, unfortunately, has only emboldened the worst elements in the Chinese regime.”

“The Chinese Communists interpret attempts at accommodation as signs of weakness, and then they press the advantage with even more aggressive conduct,” Chang added. “President Trump should know that: He tried in 2020 to accommodate Beijing, and the regime then dishonored its agreements and worked hard to defeat him in the election that year. He is now repeating that failed approach.”