Travelers returning from China often report having seen the future. The country’s advances in frontier commercial technologies are visible in the robots that make and serve food in restaurants; the drones that deliver food and medicine; and the deployment of industrial and humanoid robots on factory floors. Even outside China, most of the world is now familiar with Chinese electric vehicles that are as affordable as they are sleek, with massage chairs and swappable batteries winning over passengers from London to Santiago.

Most Americans, however, are unaware of this future. Chinese EVs are effectively absent from the U.S. market, blocked by 250 percent tariffs and broad national security restrictions. And a bipartisan fear has prevented many frontier Chinese technologies, including drones and robots, from reaching U.S. shores. Apart from a handful of products, mostly consumer electronics, the U.S. market is largely oblivious to the fruits of China’s advanced manufacturing ecosystem.

The United States has its reasons for this blind spot. As early as the second Obama administration, if not before, it became clear that China was not playing fairly in business. Successive administrations have used a slew of trade remedies and official complaints to the World Trade Organization to fight back against unfair subsidies, and rulings by the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) have tried to prevent sensitive U.S. technologies from falling into the hands of Chinese actors. Since 2017, Chinese firms have also found themselves the targets of heightened security reviews.

Today, many actors in Washington think the United States should do even more to disengage from Chinese business. Members of Congress are pressuring American pharmaceutical companies to discontinue clinical trials in China, for instance, citing concerns that China’s research and development ecosystem has ties to the People’s Liberation Army. Others are proposing legislation to ban Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, ostensibly to protect the U.S. food supply and critical infrastructure.

Calling out China’s gains as ill gotten is frequently justified. Defensive responses also feel satisfying—as if the United States could level the playing field and instantly create effective American competitors by locking out Chinese firms that have scaled up and advanced unfairly. Unfortunately, this approach does little to advance American economic and security interests. Chinese firms are no longer merely efficient producers or copycats; in terms of knowledge and production capability, they are increasingly global leaders in many industries. Denying them access to the American market harms U.S. competitiveness, hinders U.S. efforts to build industrial capacity at home, and ensures that U.S. industry and consumers remain far from the frontier of technological advancement.

Instead, Americans must reckon honestly with the scale of China’s industrial and technological progress. The United States need not embrace Chinese imports and investment unconditionally, but it must recognize that its own long-term competitiveness depends on its companies and consumers being exposed to the cutting edge. U.S. President Donald Trump’s vague proposal for a joint “Board of Investment” with China, announced after his May summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, seemed to suggest Washington was moving in this direction. But nothing concrete has come from the board, and managing investment flows at the leader-to-leader level is certainly not efficient.

A more mature strategy of selective openness is possible. The United States should permit carefully structured Chinese investment in areas in which the economic and technological benefits are substantial while imposing stringent safeguards to mitigate security risks. Building the political confidence to sustain a selectively open market for Chinese direct investments requires skilled, transparent, and thorough regulatory oversight. With such an approach, Washington can penalize some imports but still permit access to the U.S. market through investments in American production facilities. There is a clear precedent for this strategy. It is,........

© Foreign Affairs