As the UK government basks in the political glow of its new trade deal with the United States, some observers are asking a tougher question: Was Washington even the right partner to prioritize?

With China’s growing dominance in global trade, technology, and infrastructure, could the UK have secured a stronger, more independent future by forging closer ties with Beijing — rather than aligning itself more tightly with Western economic policies and protectionist trends?

The deal that was — and the deal that wasn’t

The UK-US agreement announced this week has been billed as “historic,” but in reality it just rolls back some of the tariffs Trump himself imposed, offering narrow relief to the UK’s car and steel sectors.

Critics argue it amounts to damage control, not a transformative shift.

Meanwhile, China has continued to expand its global trade reach, investing heavily across Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe, while positioning itself as a key player in critical industries such as semiconductors, green energy, and advanced manufacturing.

“Starmer had the opportunity to position the UK strategically with China, especially given Beijing’s growing influence in global trade and diplomacy,” noted one sharp Facebook commenter on Vox Political’s page.

“Instead, the approach has been cautious, aligning more closely with US economic policies rather than forging independent agreements that could have stabilised Britain’s trade outlook.”

What could a China deal have offered?

A stronger trade relationship with China might have opened doors for the UK in sectors where Beijing leads:

• Technology and innovation — access to Chinese tech partnerships, manufacturing capacity, and research and development collaboration.
• Infrastructure investment — potentially tapping into Belt and Road projects or securing Chinese capital for UK infrastructure.
• Export growth — entering China’s vast consumer market for British luxury goods, services, and education.
• Diversification — reducing exposure to Western trade shocks or protectionist measures, like the US tariffs the UK just scrambled to avod.

Some economists argue that by hedging between China and the US, the UK could have carved out a more flexible, resilient global position.

Why didn’t the UK go there?

Of course, the China path is politically fraught.

• Security concerns loom large, from Huawei’s role in UK telecoms to fears over intellectual property theft and geopolitical tensions.
• US pressure likely played a role; Washington has made clear it expects allies to side with it in the emerging US-China rivalry.
• Public opinion in the UK has grown more wary of China, particularly post-pandemic, making any high-profile Beijing deal politically risky.

But even so, some analysts suggest the government showed too little imagination — or too much caution — at a moment when Britain’s post-Brexit identity was still up for grabs.

A missed opportunity — or a cautious bet?

Was the China option ever truly viable, or was it always an impossible balancing act for a UK caught between alliances, values, and security ties?

What’s clear is that by focusing narrowly on the US deal, the UK may have locked itself into a more dependent, Western-centered economic future — one increasingly shaped by protectionist policies and shifting domestic politics in Washington.

As global power tilts eastward, some will ask whether Britain’s trade strategy was too timid, too aligned, and ultimately too limited.

The UK may have scored a symbolic win with the US — but it’s worth asking if the bigger, bolder play was left on the table in Beijing.