The US Steven Bradbury'd it's way into world hegemony less than a hundred years past following a European home goal that took out Britain and Germany.
China hasn't been just a regional power for a few decades now; eg: how many nuclear power stations (long term big infrastructure) are being built by China in other countries right now .. how many are the US building?
The US will be around for a century and more most likely, but it's alliances and economic integration are alteady on the wane.
Depends whether the US can bring back proper diplomacy or whether it'll continue to rely on force projection.
Will the diversity within the US enable it to pull together as a nation, overcome infighting, and out innovate China with it's plethora of phone and EV types, overnight pprototyping, on demand cheap bulk bespoke pharma production, etc?
Rome?
(I've seen at least one economist claim that given the growth differentials, they would've been better off peacefully outcompeting them, but maybe the "Thucydides trap"[1] was already sprung? Even so, it's still an own goal)
[0] although this does make doing a Bradbury even more apt
[1] compare "always two there are. no more. no less."
The USA has a "principles" based policy, that is hypocritical and is actually a private property based interests based policy.
It makes the Chinese straight forward to deal with, whereas the USA is not easy to deal with, you can never be sure where you will stand with them in a decade.
Then there is Trump....
(I'm willing to bet that in a decade the US will still consider their interests to be closer to the Athenians at Melos than to JFK being summoned by the trumpet. In particular, I'll bet that the US will remain interested in carrier strike groups, and remain uninterested in having either universal health care or skilled labour)
(or maybe he was just miffed that instead of loanwords from hebrew, eg Tacheles reden, the kids in germany are shocking their elders by getting their loanwords from other semitic languages, eg Ahki?)
which sides are both sides again? in this case I claim that it's difficult for imported skills to be transmitted to the next generation when the US educational system is (or at least it was during my time) built around producing the sort of highly fungible Schumpeterian worker bees who play well with others.
(Bernie? Chomsky? DJT, only whilst on goldplated throne?)
(although I guess every consequentialism has to have a steep discount factor, otherwise putative desired consequences arbitrarily far in the future could be claimed to justify obviously undesirable actions today? Note also that Gov. Long didn't die in bed.)
The US used to be a supporter of an international trade framework, based on the WTO. Now, the US is probably the WTO's greatest antagonist.
The US talks about human rights and international law, but then backs Israel as the latter flattens Gaza and kills tens of thousands of civilians in a massive turkey shoot.