This is essentially the rock and the hard place we find ourselves in. It's compounded by the fact that assessment of different policies is hardly apolitical. Many may agree that the USA is doing less and China is doing more, but we can't really spend our time determining if an assessment has any bias. As such, we are probably going to have to remove anything we can't easily tell is apolitical and has no intended bias.I know that you and I discussed this in the plastic thread, but the OP didn't write the article, and it didn't say good or bad, it said who was doing more and who was doing less (and why less). IMO, stating that fact isn't political, but any discussion of it (likely) will be.
For what it's worth, using Trump and China, rather than USA and China (or the federal government of the USA if you want to be more specific) will likely lead us to assume political motive.