Instead, there are substantial arguments about freedom of speech and accountability. Even though they are messy, they are what we need to apply here because they are a legally binding framework that we built over decades.
By the way, I found Levitski and Ziblatt's book "How Democracies Die" [1] a pretty good treatment of these issues of balancing freedom of expression and democratic resilience.
Trade is a 2 way street, if our companies can not compete there, then their companies should not be able to compete here.
Americans can invest and have minority ownership in china but can not just "operate" in china like you can in the US as a Foreign company.
Infact this was the regulation trump wanted to impose on ByteDance, they needed an American partner to operate in the US, i.e they were in talks with Oracle before Biden reversed the order
For protection of domestic civic society, culture and public opinion, trade agreements are irrelevant. That's how the french got to keep their quota for french-language music in broadcasting, for example.
Tit-for-tat is literally how agreements around the world works.
"Reciprocity treaty" if you want to make it fancy sounding, but it's just "tit-for-tat" for Taxes, Tariffs, Visitor visa & rules, etc.