It gets treats from China well in excess of what it gives to China and rest of the world, that the US de-industrialized itself in doing so is a political choice.

Without a full employment policy, loss of exports for the exporting country means

It will lose employment, capitalists may not invest with lower demand.
A balance of payments squeeze (basically the amount of resources a country can command abroad) will occur, since many exporting countries can't get more than they give.

With a full employment policy, (1) wouldn't occur, since the state will provide employment and invest as needed. (2) however would be a constraint which is part of the reason why many exporting countries, particularly smaller ones can't decouple from the US.

For the importing country, imports can displace local production within a market economy. However, it doesn't mean the state can't counter it. After all, imports basically mean China is giving the US stuff for free while taking its own electronic entries.

If US wants, it can continue to produce cars, if the quality is as good as Chinese it can set prices to match Chinese ones. If its worse, it can sell the cars at a discount over Chinese ones. The state can set prices this way to keep its industry, the industry may run losses in money terms, but it gives the country self-sufficiency and employment. The US by allowing imports without a full employment policy basically crushed worker bargaining.