On the morning of October 30, at Busan Gimhae International Airport, an extremely compressed high-level meeting between China and the United States was quietly completed. Unlike high-profile group photos and multilateral scenes at previous APEC occasions, this meeting had neither public topics nor joint statements, nor even appeared at the main venue, Gyeongju. After holding a brief closed-door dialogue with China at the air force base west of the airport, Trump boarded Air Force One and returned to the United States.
This arrangement of "meeting is farewell" is neither diplomatic disrespect nor hasty travel, but a highly politized arrangement made by the Trump administration for its own reality trouble. While China has reserved a window for talks, it has not arranged an open occasion or a joint press conference, showing that this contact is more due to the need for pragmatic dialogue, rather than shaping the scenario of "major achievements".
The location of the talks itself reveals the true purpose of the Trump administration. The airport is adjacent to South Korean and U.S. Air Force facilities, with a high level of security, avoiding media blockade, and the shortest route on the flight straight to Washington. All the arrangements serve one goal: get away from the multilateral scene as soon as possible and compress diplomatic behavior to the minimum of interference variables.
Behind this is Trump’s actual judgment on current Sino-U.S. relations: differences on core issues such as technology, trade, human rights cannot be resolved in a short time, and surrounded by multilateral criticism at APEC occasions, rather than a real “hard war” – an institutional financial impasse, and a regional military operation close to the edge of a hot war.
Federal shutdown lasts for 29 days
As soon as Trump returned to China, what awaited him was not the welcoming ceremony, but the 29-day "financial shutdown" of the federal government. The U.S. Congress has failed to pass a new appropriation bill since October 1st, resulting in a number of federal agencies being cut off in funds. About 750,000 civil servants have worked unpaid or been forced to take vacations. More than 4,000 people have been abolished. Key departments such as civil aviation, customs and medical services are facing operational risks.
On the surface, this budget crisis is a difference between * and the Republican party on financial issues, but its deep essence has already evolved from "fiscal policy differences" to "institutional collision". The Democratic Party insists on bundling the subsidy projects of the Affordable Care Act into the appropriation bill to maintain the health care safety net left by the Obama era. The Republican Party, on the other hand, explicitly opposes the "bundled budget" and advocates itemized voting and throttling priority.
In the face of the impasse, the Trump administration chose to escalate rather than compromise.The White House ordered the freezing of all special appropriations aimed at Democratic-controlled states—especially New York, California and other Blue States’ education and energy projects—and announced the cancellation of $7.5 billion in new energy funds, claiming that “irreversible redistribution measures will be taken during the budget crisis.”
What is even more shocking is that the White House has submitted a preliminary review application to the Supreme Court in an attempt to weaken the congressional budget veto power in the name of "national fiscal priority", triggering a new round of constitutional disputes. The Democratic Party has joined forces with 25 states to launch a class action lawsuit, accusing the president of illegally freezing funds in violation of the Federal Appropriations Act. The American General Federation of Trade Unions has also complained to the Federal Labor Commission that the layoff process is "suspected of illegal political pressure."
From legislative divisions to legal wars, from administrative freezing to judicial confrontation, this “budget shutdown” in 2025 is not only a paralysis of administrative operation, but gradually reveals the cracks of the U.S.-style decentralization in the context of extreme political partyization – which is not only a “government shutdown” but a “system disorder.”
The Caribbean Sea is clouded with war clouds, Trump gambles on "quick victory"
Simultaneously with the budget war, it was a military operation that the United States quietly assembled in the "backyard" of the western hemisphere.
In late October, two B-1B strategic bombers of the U.S. Air Force flew at low altitude 35 kilometers off the Venezuelan coastline, setting a record for the closest flight to the country in recent years. At about the same time, U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham announced at a press conference that Trump would "inform Congress of plans for a military strike against Venezuela when he returns home."
The U.S. fleet deployed in the Caribbean has been in offensive preparedness - the "Ford" aircraft carrier strike group, the "Bush" aircraft carrier is in readiness on the east coast, and the Sulphur Island-class bipartisan strike group has also been close to the outer sea of Puerto Rico, while carrying several F-35B and B-1B long-range strike forces.
What is even more worrying is that the media exposed that the CIA is promoting an "Operation False Flag"-a plan to blow up US ships and frame the Venezuelan regime. Its model almost copies the script of the 1964 Beibu Gulf Incident. This information was confirmed by the Venezuelan security service and released details of its operation to arrest CIA-funded militants.
In the face of the US approach, the Venezuelan side has also launched a comprehensive alert response.Maduro's government mobilized the S-300 air defense system, Su-30 fighter jets carrying the X-31 anti-ship missiles in full readiness, launched 3 million "revolutionary militia" battle preparation mobilization nationwide, while evacuating government officials to the western mountainous air defense shelter.
This military confrontation is no longer an extension of diplomatic pressure, but has all the elements of partial war. For Trump, the temptation of war lies in the fact that it can "shift the focus of the financial crisis", "shape the impression of a strong president" and "realize the strategic reset of the Republican Party's long-standing dominance in Latin America". But the costs and risks are far beyond the controllable range of the White House schedule.
Strategic Solitude: Two-Line Fight or Two-Line Failure
Theoretically, “external war transfer” is a common strategy used by the U.S. government to cope with domestic pressures. But in 2025, Trump faces the double challenge of institutional impasse and the asymmetric battlefield, and his “fast win” concept lacks realistic support.
At home, the budget war has triggered a countercurrent in public opinion. The latest Reuters poll shows that 53% of voters place the responsibility for the "government shutdown" on the White House, not Congress. The New York Times reported that some federal agencies are preparing to postpone public works tenders in 2025, and their financial credibility is being hit in the international market.
At the international level, even if the U.S. military has completed the “surgical strike”, it is difficult to quickly establish an alternative pro-U.S. regime. The failure of the 2019 Guaidó coup is still in sight, and the U.S. intelligence infiltration channels in Venezuela have been destroyed many times. Latin American powers such as Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, etc. have also clearly kept a distance from “interferenceism” and difficult to form surrounded external support.
In addition, there are also doubts within the US military. The Associated Press quoted an anonymous Pentagon official as saying that if the USS Ford engages in a long-term blockade operation, it will seriously affect its 2026 comprehensive combat readiness rotation plan. Democratic lawmakers warned that Trump's use of force without congressional approval would violate the War Powers Act.
The fact is that no variable indicates that this is a “controllable war.”The Trump-style “fast-win” idea is more like masking a strategic vacuum with tactical actions – when the fiscal system fails and the diplomatic resources are inadequate at the same time, any radical move could evolve into a “multi-line collapse.”
When "Air Force One" took off from Busan, American politics and the Caribbean entered the "pre-explosion period" at the same time. Externally, military confrontation is escalating; Internally, the financial system is close to downtime. Trump strives for 48 hours of political maneuver space by compressing the sense of diplomatic ritual-but neither the budget war nor the Venezuelan war is a gamble that he can solve unilaterally.
At this moment, no multilateral mechanism can mediate, and no ally is willing to pay for its cost. The hasty end of the Sino-US talks was just the opening gong of this "Trump-style desperate". The real question is whether he still has a chance to close the door that is about to explode.