As President Donald Trump pushes for greater executive control—whether through judicial interference, aggressive foreign policy manoeuvres, or dismissing legal checks—his actions bear striking similarities to the governance model of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). From attacking judges who rule against him to proposing U.S. control over foreign territories, these moves raise concerns about authoritarian tendencies. In this article, we explore how Trump’s recent decisions echo China’s centralized power structure and what that means for democracy.
Leasing of Ukraine minerals plan
Trump initially said Ukraine would get “the right to fight on” in return for access to its minerals, but in the days after the spat in Washington he paused all US military aid to Ukraine.
The relationship between the two leaders showed little sign of improving in the days afterwards, with the US announcing it was pausing all military aid to Ukraine.
Hours after that announcement, Zelensky posted a lengthy message on social media expressing his gratitude for American support for Ukraine, and saying his country was ready to sign the minerals deal at “any time and in any convenient format”.
In a speech to Congress, Trump said he appreciated the message from Zelensky, but it is currently unclear if or when the deal will be signed.
In the days before the deal was supposed to be signed, disagreement over its terms formed part of a deepening rift between Trump and Zelensky.
The Ukrainian president rejected an initial request from the US for $500bn (£395bn) in mineral wealth, but this demand was dropped from the version published online.
“The US administration started with a deal that challenged Ukraine’s sovereignty, then pushed an exploitative one that would bankrupt the country,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former minister and head of Kyiv school of economics, told the BBC.
“Now, they’ve shifted to a reasonable deal with co-ownership and no direct claims on past aid. That could actually benefit Ukraine.”
Trump has repeatedly claimed the US has given Ukraine between $300bn (£237bn) and $350bn (£276bn) in aid, and that he wanted to “get that money back” through a deal.
How Does This Compare to Chinese Communist Practices?
Resource-for-Control Strategy
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has used similar strategies in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, securing exclusive rights to minerals and infrastructure in exchange for financial aid or loans.
If Trump (or any U.S. leader) were to negotiate security in exchange for minerals, it could resemble China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), where Beijing funds infrastructure but gains leverage over local economies.
Pressuring Smaller Nations
China has been criticized for using “debt trap diplomacy” to coerce countries into giving up control over ports, mines, and other strategic assets.
If Ukraine is being strong-armed into giving mineral access in exchange for past aid, it could parallel how China negotiates with weaker nations.
Overtaking of Gaza as they helped Israel
U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed that the United States “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip, suggesting long-term control after the ongoing conflict. His statement came during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on February 4, where Trump emphasized the need for a new approach to Gaza’s future.
Since his announcement, Trump and his administration have sent mixed signals about the plan. On February 5, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt assured reporters that Palestinian displacement would be “temporary” and that no U.S. troops or tax dollars would be involved in Gaza. However, in a February 10 Fox News interview, Trump appeared to contradict this, stating that Palestinians would not return to Gaza because “they’re going to have much better housing… a permanent place for them.”
Similarities to China’s Approach
Territorial Control & Expansionist Policies
If Trump proposed that the U.S. control Gaza long-term, it would mirror China’s approach to Hong Kong, Tibet, and the South China Sea, where Beijing asserts control over disputed regions under the guise of governance or stability.
China’s “One China” policy has been used to justify its control over Taiwan and Hong Kong, while a U.S.-led takeover of Gaza could be framed as a security necessity but result in long-term American dominance.
Strategic Resource & Economic Interests
China takes over regions with valuable resources (e.g., rare earth minerals in Tibet, oil and gas in the South China Sea).
If the U.S. sought to control Gaza’s ports and potential offshore gas reserves, it could resemble how China exploits territorial claims to secure economic and military advantages.
Displacement & Population Control
Reports suggest Trump allegedly proposed relocating Palestinians to a “better place” outside Gaza, which would be akin to China’s forced displacement of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and efforts to reengineer demographics in Tibet and Hong Kong.
The CCP often justifies population resettlement as economic modernization or security, similar to how Trump’s comments could be framed as a humanitarian effort.
Ignoring Local Governance & Self-Determination
China overrides local governments in Hong Kong and Tibet, installing pro-Beijing figures who enforce CCP policies.
If the U.S. imposed long-term governance over Gaza, it would resemble China’s model of imposing direct or indirect rule over autonomous regions.
Overrule to Jugdges order
Resident Donald Trump on Monday questioned the impartiality of the federal judge who blocked his plans to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, levelling his criticism only hours before his administration will ask an appeals court to lift the judge’s order.
Just after midnight, Trump posted a social media message calling for Chief Judge James Boasberg to be disbarred. Trump reposted an article about Boasberg’s attendance at a legal conference that purportedly featured “anti-Trump speakers.”
Similarities to China’s Communist System
Undermining Judicial Independence
Trump’s public criticism of a federal judge’s ruling and his call for disbarment echo how China’s Communist Party (CCP) controls its judicial system.
In China, the courts are not independent; they operate under CCP directives, ensuring rulings align with government policies (e.g., Hong Kong’s National Security Law trials).
While the U.S. judicial system is designed to be independent, Trump’s attacks on judges resemble the CCP’s suppression of legal autonomy when courts challenge government authority.
Political Retaliation Against Opponents
The CCP has a history of discrediting and punishing judges, lawyers, and officials who oppose its policies (e.g., China’s crackdown on pro-democracy lawyers).
Trump’s demand to disbar a judge for ruling against him mirrors authoritarian tactics of removing legal professionals who do not align with the ruling party.
Strongman Leadership & Executive Overreach
In China, Xi Jinping has consolidated power, eliminating opposition and ensuring loyalty in all branches of government.
Trump’s dismissal of judicial rulings and personal attacks on judges suggest a desire for centralized executive power, which mirrors the CCP’s intolerance for legal checks and balances.
Using Media to Control the Narrative
China uses state-controlled media to discredit dissenters and control public perception.
Trump’s social media attacks on judges are a parallel strategy, using direct messaging to influence public opinion and pressure the judiciary.
Key Differences Between Trump’s Approach and China’s Model
China locks countries into long-term, high-debt agreements where Beijing directly controls infrastructure.
The U.S. (under any administration) operates through private companies, not state-owned enterprises.
Ukraine has negotiating power with multiple Western allies, while China usually ensures its partners have no alternatives.
Unlike Xi Jinping, who controls the judiciary, legislature, and military, Trump still faces checks and balances from independent judges, Congress, and state governments.