After months of trade tensions, a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping is moving closer to reality. The details of the meeting, including its timing and agenda, are still being finalized, but recent diplomatic activity signals progress toward direct talks.
In August, the Trump administration announced a 90-day extension of the tariff truce with China. This move came after high-level trade discussions in London and Stockholm and a meeting between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. According to the State Department, both sides are now exploring “areas of potential cooperation.”
Trade issues such as China’s industrial overcapacity, investment commitments, purchases of U.S. goods, and fentanyl will likely be central topics in any future agreement. However, some analysts warn that focusing only on these points could mean missing broader strategic opportunities for both countries.
Recent events have shown that both the United States and China can significantly disrupt each other’s economies through tariffs and export controls. For example, when China restricted exports of rare earth minerals—materials vital for American technology industries—the effects were immediate for U.S. manufacturers. Despite efforts by both countries to reduce dependence on each other for critical goods like semiconductors and rare earths, full self-sufficiency remains years away.
The article suggests that at their summit, Trump and Xi should agree to limit the use of economic measures as weapons except in narrowly defined national security cases. They should also ensure transparency around new restrictions, avoid targeting non-military sectors unnecessarily, and set up communication channels to resolve business disputes quickly.
“These commitments would not end the strategic rivalry, nor would they prevent the use of targeted restrictions where national security truly requires them. But they would help stabilize the economic relationship—reducing uncertainty for businesses, shielding American firms from whiplash diplomacy, and signaling to global markets that commercial logic still has a place alongside geopolitical competition,” writes Patricia M. Kim.
Regional security concerns involving North Korea and Russia are also expected to be part of summit discussions. The United States may push China to take steps such as curbing exports that support Russia’s military operations or encouraging dialogue between Ukraine and Russia.
“Beijing will not publicly jeopardize its partnership with Moscow... But the Trump administration should urge Chinese leaders to privately identify tangible steps—such as curbing specific exports—that would signal their disapproval of further escalation,” Kim notes.
On North Korea, both Washington and Beijing want stability on the Korean Peninsula but face challenges due to North Korea’s growing ties with Russia and its hardened stance on nuclear weapons since 2019.
“To break this impasse... Washington should press both Beijing and Moscow to state clearly that North Korea’s bid for recognition as a nuclear weapons state is a nonstarter,” Kim writes.
Taiwan policy is another sensitive issue ahead of the summit. Recent U.S. actions seen as conciliatory toward Beijing have raised concerns about possible shifts in longstanding policy language regarding Taiwan’s status.
“The administration should make clear that neither the policy language nor U.S. support for Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities is up for negotiation,” Kim argues.
Looking beyond the summit itself, experts emphasize that ongoing management will be crucial to preventing renewed tensions between Washington and Beijing. Mechanisms for regular communication and enforcement must be established so agreements remain effective over time.
“Ultimately, the Trump-Xi summit will not resolve the deep-rooted structural tensions in the U.S.-China relationship,” Kim concludes. “However, it can be used to impose strategic discipline on that rivalry—making it more predictable...”
The coming months present an opportunity for both governments not only to de-escalate current disputes but also build frameworks for longer-term stability in their relationship.
