Trump-Xi Summit In May Changed Nothing In US-China Equation – OpEd
When Airforce One landed in Beijing last month for much anticipated Trump-Xi summit, carefully choreographed optics emerged depicting two major powers pledging stability. These optics became a highlight for many editorial desks who later featured it to their front page. Markets around the world inhaled breath of fresh air and analysts started talking about possibility of thaw in bilateral relations in context of the US-China competition. However, outcome of this summit looked like a managed pause in competition as neither side is willing to backdown from their position. The readouts coming from Washington and Beijing highlighted issues of trade and security as the primary issues discussed during talks. But what didn’t come out were the more imminent and pressing issues pertaining to intensifying great power competition over technology, digital infrastructure and economic security. This means that despite symbolism, meeting didn’t transform the trajectory of US-China relations.
The optics that Trump-Xi summit exuded were quite different from what it actually achieved. The main issues that were at the table before this summit remained there and tensions increased after summit as demonstrated by frictions over trade and technology. The first and foremost issue was related to trade which was also the highlight of Trump’s first administration. Being featured as the primary component of talks in the official readouts, nothing substantial came out in the end. One of the agreements that was reached during these talks was the purchase of 200 Boeing jets which, if materialized, will mark China’s first purchase in over a decade. However, the official confirmation of this deal is yet to be done by two of the three parties of this agreement that is Boeing and the China. Another thing was the reduction of tariffs over some agricultural products and resumption of poultry and beef imports to China as licenses of many facilities were renewed. However, the most important issue on table was the extension of trade truce that was signed between both parties in 2025. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the US is “not in a rush to extend” the one-year trade truce, adding that “Things are stable.” Tariffs continue to serve as instruments of strategic leverage, while both countries increasingly view economic relations through the prism of national security.
The most consequential area that dominated the academic and policy circles debates before summit was the technological competition. The future of the US-China competition will revolve around this arena where both powers will try to secure the technological dominance over the other. The issues of technology mainly comprise of competition over semiconductors and advanced chips, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies, Digital infrastructure and technological standards. After the summit, President Trump suggested that there were limited discussions on these issues and only discussions that took place were the cooperation over AI safety standards. Later the remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer further clarified that the issue of export controls was not discussed. This was notable given the presence of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang in the presidential delegation and the issue surrounding sales of advanced Nvidia H200 chips to China. While Beijing subsequently announced plans for a bilateral AI dialogue, Washington has yet to signal a comparable initiative, underscoring the persistent gap between the two sides on technology-related issues.
Both the powers seek to dominate the race in domain of AI as it is becoming increasingly intertwined with economic competitiveness and military power. As US wants to maintain its lead in advanced AI models, China is trying to catch up despite restrictions. Recently, Anthropic suspended access to its advanced AI models Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for foreign users. The reason sighted was the national security concerns by the US government without giving any further details. It is public knowledge that the US accuses China of using ‘distillation’ technique to replicate capabilities of leading U.S. AI models such as such as Anthropic and OpenAI. With all these issues in AI causing frictions in the US-China relations, summit produced only limited discussion on AI safety standards.
The United States continues to impose restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports to China to limit its AI and military advancement, but these measures remain unchanged. While Washington debates their effectiveness and companies like Nvidia warn of economic costs and unintended acceleration of China’s self-reliance, Beijing is steadily expanding its domestic chip capabilities. Given that semiconductors are central to AI, computing, and defense systems, the summit ultimately made no progress on one of the most contentious issues in the bilateral relationship.
In the US policy making circles, there are growing concerns about increasing Chinese actions in cyberspace. The issue centers on ongoing U.S. allegations that China conducts sustained cyber espionage against American government institutions, private firms, and critical infrastructure, with specific concerns around intrusions attributed to groups like Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon that reportedly target telecommunications and essential services such as energy and water systems. U.S. intelligence views China as the most persistent cyber threat, yet the recent summit produced no meaningful agreement on cyber stability or rules of restraint. After this summit Trump talked about the discussion on issues related to cyber threats. When asked whether there were any discussions about cyber issues he stated that; ‘I did and he talked about attacks that we did in China. Y’know, what they do, we do too.” He added that, “They’re talking about the spying. Well, we do it too.” “We spy like hell on them too.” This casual equivalence also downplays the significance of cyber tensions raised in diplomatic settings, effectively stripping the issue of moral or legal distinction and reframing it as routine intelligence competition. In doing so, his comments contrast with the usual official U.S. framing, which typically emphasizes Chinese cyber threats as asymmetric and destabilizing rather than mutually mirrored behavior.
In short, Trump-Xi summit delivered little beyond carefully managed optics, creating an impression of stability without altering the underlying trajectory of U.S-China rivalry. While commentators initially read the meeting as a potential thaw, the substantive outcomes were limited to minor trade adjustments and uncertain commitments, while the most consequential issues such as technology competition, semiconductors, AI governance, and cybersecurity remained largely untouched. The absence of substantive breakthroughs at the summit suggests that future U.S-China engagement will likely remain transactional and issue-specific rather than transformative. As both powers double down on technological self-reliance and strategic hedging, the relationship is set to evolve not toward reconciliation, but toward a stable yet persistent rivalry shaped by mutual deterrence and cautious engagement.
