ABSTRACT This study examines the evolving dynamics of partisan polarization in US congressional behavior toward China. While Republicans have traditionally adopted more hawkish stances and Democrats have favored engagement, recent years—particularly since 2018—have witnessed the emergence of a bipartisan consensus framing China as a strategic threat. Drawing on an original dataset of 138 China‐specific congressional roll‐call votes from 1989 to 2024, the study employs two empirical indicators—a Party Difference Score and a Partisan Hawkishness Score—to assess ideological divergence and policy alignment across five issue domains. Standardized OLS regression and difference‐in‐means analyses reveal a significant decline in partisan differences on national security–related legislation, accompanied by a notable rise in hawkishness among both parties. However, polarization remains pronounced on issues related to trade, cultural exchange, and multifaceted policy areas. These findings lend support to both the external threat hypothesis and the literature on partisan foreign policy polarization: while perceptions of existential threat can foster bipartisan alignment in national security, they do not fully override entrenched ideological divisions across broader foreign policy domains. Related Articles Fowler, L. 2022 “Searching for Green Elephants and Other Mythical Creatures during the Trump Years: Partisanship and Congressional Voting on Environmental Legislation.” Politics and Policy 50, no. 5: 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12499 . Dunning, K. H. 2021. “Unlikely Conservation Policy Making in a Polarized Congress: A Multiple Streams Analysis of ‘America's Most Successful Conservation Program’.” Politics and Policy 50, no. 1: 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12448 . Gershtenson, J., Smith, B.W., and Mangun, W. R. 2006. “Friends of the Earth? Partisanship, Party Control of Congress, and Environmental Legislation in Congress.” Politics and Policy 34, no. 1: 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2006.00004.x .
Linggong Kong (Wed,) studied this question.