The Trump–Xi summit showed that limited economic cooperation persists, but strategic rivalry continues to define US–China ties
Amid the continuing conflict in the Middle East, global attention briefly shifted towards President Donald Trump’s visit to China on 14-15 May 2026, marking the first visit by an incumbent US president to Beijing since his own trip in 2017. While the summit has widely been viewed as more symbolic than substantive, the discussions surrounding trade, technology, and rare earths deserve closer attention. This is particularly important given the wider implications that economic and technological engagement between Washington and Beijing can have at a time of growing global uncertainty, for both the bilateral relationship and the broader international economy.
Following his two-day visit to China, Trump described the trip as “incredible.” According to the White House Fact Sheet, the summit sought to build a “constructive relationship of strategic stability” between the two countries based on “fairness and reciprocity”. Both sides agreed to establish new “Board of Trade” and “Board of Investment” mechanisms to manage bilateral trade and investment issues. Economically, Washington highlighted a series of commitments from Beijing, including the reported purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft, expanded imports of US agricultural products, renewed access for American beef and poultry exports, and measures to address American concerns over rare earth and critical mineral supply shortages.
Trade is arguably the most crucial factor shaping how the world’s largest and second-largest economies interact and it remained central to the summit.
Yet despite the broad announcements, several agreements remained short on operational details, particularly on technology restrictions, tariffs, and long-term supply chain disputes.
Trade is arguably the most crucial factor shaping how the world’s largest and second-largest economies interact and it remained central to the summit. Trump has long argued that the existing trade relationship disproportionately benefits China, and his visit to Beijing appeared designed to demonstrate that his administration could still extract visible economic concessions from Beijing despite the broader deterioration in bilateral ties. Beijing, however, adopted a far more restrained tone. While Chinese officials referred to “new consensuses” reached between the two sides, they avoided publicly confirming several of the reported agreements, particularly on agriculture and Boeing purchases.
The visit reflected how the trade confrontation between Washington and Beijing has gradually shifted in tone over the past year. Trump’s tariff pressure initially aimed to push China towards unilateral concessions, but Beijing responded with retaliatory tariffs and restrictions on critical mineral supplies, exposing American vulnerabilities in key industries. Despite the rhetoric of economic decoupling, neither side appeared willing to absorb the wider costs of a deeper rupture. This perhaps explains why the summit ultimately focused more on selective economic indicators, such as reported Boeing aircraft sales and agricultural purchase agreements, rather than on the more contentious structural disputes that have shaped the relationship in recent years. Significantly, several long-standing US complaints, including concerns over Chinese industrial overcapacity, barely featured publicly during the summit. Instead, the talks suggested that both sides are now trying to manage competition more carefully while continuing to protect the sectors they increasingly view as central to long-term economic and technological strength.
Several long-standing US complaints, including concerns over Chinese industrial overcapacity, barely featured publicly during the summit.
The economic outcomes of the summit appeared far more modest when compared to Trump’s 2017 visit to China, during which companies accompanying the US president announced deals and memorandums reportedly worth nearly US$250 billion. By contrast, the latest visit produced no major breakthrough on the proposed sale of advanced NVIDIA H200 artificial intelligence chips to China, an outcome likely welcomed by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who have consistently argued against easing restrictions on China’s AI sector. Even the reported Boeing agreement reflected a more limited outcome than initially anticipated. Taken together, the summit suggested that while both sides remain interested in preserving selective economic engagement, the space for large-scale commercial agreements has narrowed considerably amid growing strategic and technological competition.
Access to critical and rare earth minerals remained one of the most sensitive issues surrounding the summit. China’s dominance over global rare earth supply chains had already become a major source of leverage during the 2025 tariff confrontation, when Beijing restricted exports of minerals essential to American manufacturing and high-technology industries. Uncertainty remains over whether it will continue beyond this year. Analysts believe the issue is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Extending the current arrangement would represent the “best-case outcome” for Washington in the near term, noting that the US and its allies cannot quickly match China’s dominance in mining and processing critical minerals. The issue, therefore, continues to expose a deeper reality in US-China relations: despite growing strategic rivalry, American industries remain heavily dependent on Chinese-controlled supply chains in several critical sectors.
Despite the positive rhetoric surrounding the summit, the talks produced little progress on technology restrictions and semiconductor competition. The United States continues to maintain export controls on advanced chips and chipmaking equipment to limit China’s access to cutting-edge AI capabilities, while Beijing views such measures as an effort to slow its technological rise. Although US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that discussions on AI guardrails had taken place, both sides remain far apart on the broader question of technological competition. The issue also remains closely tied to Taiwan’s central role in global semiconductor manufacturing. More broadly, the summit reinforced a growing reality in US-China relations: while trade negotiations may continue, technology has emerged as the central arena of long-term strategic competition between Washington and Beijing.
The United States continues to maintain export controls on advanced chips and chipmaking equipment to limit China’s access to cutting-edge AI capabilities, while Beijing views such measures as an effort to slow its technological rise.
The Trump-Xi summit showed that Washington and Beijing still want enough stability in the relationship to keep dialogue alive, but not enough trust to move beyond narrow, carefully managed deals. The trade announcements gave both sides something to claim at home, yet they did not touch the deeper problems that continue to shape the relationship. What emerged was less a reset than a pause, useful for appearances, but limited in substance.
That is even clearer in technology and rare earths. No real progress was made on AI chips, export controls, or critical minerals, which remain the areas where the two countries feel most exposed to each other. The result is a relationship that can still produce temporary understandings, but not durable confidence. The summit did not close the gap between the two sides; it only showed how much narrower the space for compromise has become.
Uday Nitin Patil is a researcher specialising in the U.S. Foreign Policy, U.S.-China relations and Great Power Politics of the Indo-Pacific.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Uday Nitin Patil is a Dr. T. M. A. Pai Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations Manipal Academy of Higher Education ...
Read More +
PREV
