Nuclear fusion is quickly becoming one of the most consequential technological frontiers of the 21st century. Long imagined as the holy grail of clean, limitless energy, fusion is no longer science fiction. It’s an emerging global competition- and increasingly, a geopolitical flashpoint between the United States and China. 

Both nations are pouring billions into fusion development, driven by the promise of carbon-free power and the potential to transform economic and security landscapes. But as China progresses ahead, fusion is being absorbed into a broader narrative of US-China rivalry. Without a plan to balance competition with cooperation, the race for fusion could slide into the kind of zero-sum thinking that once defined the Cold War. 

And that would be a mistake. 

 How We Got Here: A Race with Delays, Risks, and Missed Opportunities 

China entered the fusion arena in the early 2000s- decades after the US – by joining the massive International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project in France, along with more than 30 countries. Today, ITER is the centerpiece of multilateral fusion research. But the initiative faces staggering delays, with operations now projected for 2034, almost a decade behind schedule. 

Fusion timelines are slipping at the precise moment when global electricity demand is skyrocketing, largely due to energy-hungry artificial intelligence systems. With China investing roughly $1.5 billion per year into fusion, nearly twice US federal levels, the US risks losing momentum. 

That’s why strengthening bilateral US-China collaboration is more important than ever. Cooperation can help recover lost time, stabilize a strained relationship, and keep fusion progress aligned with global rather than partisan goals. 

 A History of Collaboration Now at Risk 

For over 45 years, the US and China have collaborated productively on scientific research. Joint projects in public health, agriculture, energy, and disease prevention have generated breakthroughs that benefited the world. Under the US-China Science and Technology Agreement, research teams for decades have shared data while protecting intellectual property. 

But since 2018, cooperation between the two has declined sharply. New restrictions, geopolitical tensions, and investigations have reduced scientific output in areas like superconductors, nanomaterials, and quantum dots. What’s worse, these lost Chinese partnerships haven’t been replaced elsewhere. 

If the US wants to lead global science, it cannot do so while cutting itself off from one of the world’s top producers of STEM talent and research. 

Yes, Security Risks Exist-but Fusion Isn’t Necessarily a Weapons Program 

Concerns about China’s history of technology theft or military espionage aren’t unfounded. Beijing has stolen sensitive US military secrets, including aircraft designs. These realities demand strong national security safeguards. 

But fusion is different. 

Unlike missile systems or weapons technology, fusion research is for the benefit of all civilians. 

Fusion technology operates with open data norms, extensive international oversight, and high transparency. It is monitored by multilateral organizations and published in open scientific literature. While any technology could theoretically be weaponized, fusion is one of the least feasible candidates. 

In fact, treating fusion like defense technology could increase global risk. If both countries pursue fusion entirely behind closed doors, mistrust will grow – and scientific progress will slow. 

The smarter strategy? Managed competition. 

A Dual-Track Plan: Compete Where Necessary, Cooperate Where Possible 

The United States doesn’t have to choose between protecting national security and advancing fusion research. It can do both. 

A dual-track approach would involve: 

1. A bilateral US-China fusion treaty

This framework would outline where cooperation is encouraged, where it is restricted, and how information is shared. It would mirror agreements that already exist in other scientific fields. 

2. Firm safeguards around sensitive technology

Clear boundaries ensure that military-relevant innovations remain protected. 

3. Confidence-building measures

Joint workshops, personnel exchanges, and collaborative projects in non-sensitive areas can reduce mistrust and build scientific transparency. 

Why This Matters Now 

Fusion is not just another technological competition. It’s a potential turning point in global energy, climate security, and long-term economic power. If the US and China treat fusion purely as a race, both could lose decades of progress, and the world could lose a desperately needed clean-energy solution.  

By embracing managed competition, the United States can: 

• accelerate fusion breakthroughs 

• strengthen global leadership in science 

• prevent fusion from becoming a geopolitical flashpoint 

• create stability in one of the world’s most consequential bilateral relationships 

Fusion doesn’t have to become the next battleground in US-China rivalry. With the right strategy, it can become a rare opportunity for shared progress in an era defined by tension. 

In 2022, the world watched in shock as Russian troops crossed into Ukraine—the largest full-scale invasion in Europe since World War II. The response was clear: denounce Moscow’s actions with sanctions, trade restrictions, and diplomatic isolation, and praise the Ukrainian spirit for defending decades of state sovereignty and independence. But then, Russia turned another weapon on Europe: energy. 

Natural gas pipelines were shut down, oil imports reduced, and Europe’s largest energy supplier sent prices skyrocketing—dismantling energy security for households and industries across the European Union. Three years later, this energy crisis lingers in Central Europe, where Russian import dependency remains the region’s biggest security vulnerability. 

The Visegrád Group (V4) in Central Europe (Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland) is connected by its Soviet history and regional cooperation as a powerful voting bloc within the EU. But today, the V4 is fractured along a fatal fault line. Poland and Czechia have used the crisis as a catalyst for energy diversification, rapidly expanding LNG capacity, hydrogen systems, and nuclear partnerships. Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia continue to import cheap Russian oil.

Hungary and Slovakia’s continued reliance on Russian oil is a politically charged dependency. Their governments frame these imports as a safeguard, ensuring economic protection through the energy trade relationship with Moscow. But this dependence doesn’t prevent them from being a target. Russia has long weaponized energy even against its own trade partners, using pricing and supply manipulation to gain political and economic leverage.

This is the dilemma confronting the EU and Central Europe. In the face of idle V4 cooperation, how can they accelerate diversification in states lacking the political will to pursue secure independence from Russia? The answer may be found in circumventing the need for political will altogether. 

Poland and Czechia have the chance to unlock a dormant, radical opportunity with new legislation on the doorstep of their foreign affairs ministries. The recently proposed V2 Strategic Energy Resilience Initiative (SERI) empowers a new wave of energy policy leadership for the region. Rather than relying on the volatile political consensus of national governments, SERI invests in civil society organizations (CSOs), industry associations, and private corporations to drive energy diversification from the ground up. If you’re interested in how exactly this legislation would strengthen Central Europe’s energy security and, thus, reduce the vulnerabilities posed by Russia’s escalating warfare tactics, then keep reading below. 

First, SERI authorizes an independent Diversification Grant Program for energy industry associations that are not represented in domestic policymaking spheres. This provision would expand the private sector’s financial capacity to build diverse energy generation and transmission infrastructure. Second, it establishes an information hub for technical knowledge, promoting knowledge sharing among academics and industry experts in each V4 state. And then, SERI implements a framework to initiate public information campaigns that engage CSOs. By educating on the connections among politics, economics, and energy security, this mandate combats potential misinformation and links constrained CSOs to more powerful regional and international networks. This approach transforms bottom-up mobilization into outside-in pressure, holding state governments to their energy commitments. 

SERI’s model is grounded in precedents like Poland’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan. While Hungary and Slovakia are admittedly harder cases, these precedents illustrate how diversification begins within the EU framework. These states’ infrastructure, markets, and political institutions are tightly bound to the Russian oligarchy and its supply chains; however, their civil society organizations and regional networks can—and already do—operate in parallel to government activities, promoting long-term energy transitions.

If Poland and Czechia pass and implement SERI, they can reshape the trajectory of V4 cooperation itself. Energy security would cease to be a fault line and instead become a foundation for renewed regional collaboration. Amid Russian threats to Ukraine’s sovereignty and invading the airspace of former Soviet territories, Central Europe’s independence depends on expanding the capacity of its energy sector—and refusing to let inaction dictate its future.

Right now, the United States is leaking money. And not in small amounts—we’re talking $100 billion every year. That’s the cost of letting multinational corporations shuffle their profits into tax havens, where they pay little to nothing. It’s a trick enabled by outdated tax rules that allow companies to pretend their profits were earned wherever tax rates are the lowest, even when their customers and workers are here at home.

This isn’t just a number on a spreadsheet. It’s $100 billion that could be used to pay down the national debt, fund new infrastructure, or provide tax relief for middle-class Americans struggling with the rising cost of living. Instead, middle-class families and small businesses end up carrying more of the burden while some of the wealthiest companies in the world skate by.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s a plan—a globally backed one, in fact—to put a stop to this. The OECD’s Pillar agreements are designed to make sure corporations pay taxes where they actually do business, not just where they park their headquarters. At the same time, they set a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, so countries can’t just slash taxes in a “race to the bottom” to attract big companies.

But here’s the challenge: getting this through Congress. The concern, particularly among conservatives, is that these agreements might make the U.S. less competitive, discouraging investment and job creation. That’s where we need a smart balancing act—one that combines these global reforms with powerful incentives for domestic investment.

The Case for a Balanced Approach

Let’s start with the OECD agreements. They tackle one of the biggest problems in our tax system: profit shifting. Right now, companies can register intellectual property in tax havens and then charge their U.S. operations hefty fees for using it, making their U.S. profits “disappear.” These agreements would put an end to that, ensuring companies pay their fair share where they actually operate.

But critics raise a valid point: what if these changes push companies to invest less in the U.S.? That’s why we need to pair the Pillar agreements with something that boosts investment and growth here at home—like full expensing for research and capital investments.

Full expensing sounds wonky, but it’s simple: it lets businesses immediately deduct the cost of investments like new equipment or research and development. Instead of dragging those deductions out over years, companies can write them off right away, making it cheaper and easier to grow. This isn’t just theoretical—it’s been shown to boost GDP and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Why This Matters

Think about the big picture. When corporations shift profits offshore, the rest of us pay the price. Local businesses compete on an uneven playing field, workers miss out on opportunities, and the government is left with fewer resources to invest in everything from schools to clean energy.

The Pillar agreements fix this problem by leveling the global tax playing field. And by adopting them, the U.S. wouldn’t just be protecting its own tax base—we’d be setting an example for the world. If we lead, other countries will follow, and that strengthens the global economy as a whole.

At the same time, full expensing ensures that we don’t just plug revenue leaks—we grow the pie. By making it easier for companies to invest in innovation and expansion, we can ensure that the U.S. remains the best place in the world to do business.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about punishing corporations or picking winners and losers. It’s about fairness and balance. It’s about making sure everyone pays their share while giving businesses the tools they need to thrive.

Congress has a chance to do something big here: to protect federal revenues, support American workers, and make our economy stronger and fairer for the long haul. But it takes a balanced approach—one that combines the Pillar agreements with pro-growth policies like full expensing.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If we don’t act, the “race to the bottom” will continue, draining resources and widening inequality. But if we do this right, we can secure America’s economic future while showing the world what smart, fair tax policy looks like. It’s a win-win—and it’s time to make it happen.