From Analilia Mejia to Abdul El-Sayed to Peggy Flanagan, a progressive winning streak in Democratic primaries has swept across the country in the lead-up to this year’s midterm elections. Unlike most midterm election cycles, where domestic issues dominate the political agenda, foreign policy has been thrust into the spotlight this time, with the Israel-Palestine conflict emerging as the defining litmus test of the Democratic Party. As progressive candidates have rallied behind the Palestinian cause in their battles against AIPAC-backed moderates, the party’s leftward ideological shift could impact not only the decades-long Israel-U.S. alliance, but also Washington’s policy toward its greatest strategic competitor: China.
Progressives perceive the world through the lens of structural inequality. That worldview lies at the heart of their dissatisfaction with the status quo of the U.S. socioeconomic structure: a widening gap between economic elites and ordinary people. As a result, they fight against corporate interests and political corruption, thereby translating their opposition to economic elites into opposition to the political establishment. The same logic applies to foreign affairs – progressives can readily translate their anti-establishment sentiment into opposition to American primacy, which has long been buttressed by bipartisan support for U.S. military dominance.
This helps explain why Palestine has become such a powerful cause on the left. Progressives tend to view U.S.-backed Israel as an extension of American power in the Middle East and Palestinians as victims of U.S. hegemony. Hence, although a parallel anti-Israel sentiment can also be seen among some Republicans, progressive Democrats have a fundamentally different motivation for their opposition to Israel. Whereas growing Republican opposition to unlimited aid to Israel is rooted largely in “America First” nationalism and isolationism, progressives seek to challenge American exceptionalism and the so-called U.S. global leadership that they believe perpetuates inequality.
Today, the rise of China is increasingly portrayed as a challenge to the U.S.-led global order. As a result, neither Republicans nor Democrats can easily depart from the bipartisan consensus that Beijing represents Washington’s greatest strategic competitor. Whoever is perceived as “soft on China” is almost certain to face attacks from the other side of the aisle. Both parties have thus become more inclined to play the “China card” whenever they deem it necessary – either to inoculate themselves against accusations of weakness or to gain a political advantage.
But the divide over China, although less pronounced than the divide over Israel, has become increasingly visible among Democrats with the rise of progressives. One vision, exemplified by establishment figures such as former President Joe Biden, sees a world defined by strategic competition, in which China-U.S. confrontation is unavoidable across a range of domains, from the economy and technology to culture. The other, exemplified by progressives such as Senator Bernie Sanders, rejects the self-fulfilling logic of the Thucydides Trap and champions a China policy centered on restraint and cooperation.
This progressive vision was on display in the remarks on Taiwan made by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known widely as AOC, at the Munich Security Conference this year. Despite her stumbles, AOC – arguably the biggest star among the progressive camp – captured an ethos fundamentally different from a competition-based China policy. Rather than stressing how the United States would defend Taiwan and democracy through strength, as many centrist Democrats might, she emphasized the need to work toward ensuring that the United States and China “never get to that point.”
Although it may still take time for AOC to take the national stage as a leading voice on foreign policy, her remarks epitomize a core tenet of progressive policy toward China: diplomacy before militarism.
Yes, progressives condemn China for its human rights abuses, lack of genuine democracy, and unfair trade practices. But they also hold that, instead of beating the drums for a new Cold War with the Asian powerhouse, the United States should press these issues through bilateral dialogue and multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the U.N. Human Rights Council. They understand that the effectiveness of such diplomacy depends on the moral legitimacy of the American state, both at home and on the global stage. Only in this way can the United States strengthen its ability to marshal diplomatic pressure on China when necessary, not only on its own behalf but also on behalf of its allies around the world.
For all intents and purposes, progressives are trying to build that moral legitimacy by reshaping the ideology of the Democratic Party. Nowhere is this more evident than in their challenge to the conventional U.S. support for Israel. This July, more than half of House Democrats voted to support cutting $3.3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel – a shift that would have been difficult to imagine ten years ago.
House Democrats’ new stance on Israel has a more profound implication: it could allow Congress to reclaim some of its authority over foreign policymaking from an increasingly power-hungry Donald Trump and hold policymakers accountable for poor foreign-policy decisions.
This matters because of the notoriously self-forgiving nature of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Policymakers who make consequential mistakes can often walk away scot-free, regardless of their partisan affiliation. China policy has become one of the areas most vulnerable to this dynamic. On the Republican side, we have seen Trump’s relentless use of tariffs as a weapon against China. From the 145 percent “Liberation Day” tariffs in 2025 to the most recent 12.5 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, his aggressive use of tariffs has drawn criticism not only from Democrats but increasingly from Republicans as well. Yet Trump has continued to impose tariffs with little meaningful constraint from Congress.
On the Democratic side, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, despite opposition from the Biden administration, likewise drew little public criticism from Democrats. The closest thing to a critique came from progressive Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who chose simply to remain silent.
But progressives could change that. Instead of being constrained by so-called party unity, they could translate their ideological commitments into concrete policies to check abuses of executive power in foreign policy.
Take trade policy, for example. Progressives can connect it to their broader critique of wealth inequality in the United States. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, illustrated this approach by framing tariffs as part of a larger conflict between working-class Americans and concentrated corporate interests. Senator Ron Wyden has taken that argument a step further by introducing the Congressional Trade Powers Reform Act of 2026. If enacted, the bill would curb Trump’s unfettered tariff powers and put Congress back in the driver’s seat on U.S. trade policy, potentially reshaping China-U.S. economic relations in the process.
As the 2028 presidential election nears, the “China card” is very likely to be played with increasing frequency. If the Democratic Party manages to flip the House in the midterm elections, progressives will have the next two years to negotiate and experiment with their foreign policy ideas alongside centrist Democrats. While a major breakthrough on Gaza may take time, given the establishment’s longstanding ties to Israel, Democrats can test progressive ideas on China without facing the same level of backlash they might face by systematically opposing Israel.
If a progressive China policy proves effective, it could inject fresh energy into a bland Democratic foreign-policy agenda that has left many voters frustrated – and potentially push Republicans to rethink their own approach to China.