Analysis of the Trump-Xi Meeting: Shifts in U.S.-China Relations

The recent meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping marked a notable moment in the ongoing evolution of U.S.-China relations. Taking place on February 29, 2025, in Busan, South Korea, the summit was framed by Trump as a historic encounter—his first face-to-face meeting with Xi since reclaiming the presidency. The roughly one hour and forty minutes of discussion may resonate as both a bilateral cornerstone and a pivotal point in global affairs.

In a triumphant tweet following the summit, Trump stated, “This meeting will lead to everlasting peace and success,” reflecting an optimistic outlook. This sentiment underscores a central goal of the meeting: a recalibration of how the U.S. interacts with China. Alongside positive rhetoric, concrete agreements emerged from the talks, shedding light on the practical outcomes of their discussion.

Central to these agreements was a reduction in tariffs on fentanyl precursors from 20% to 10%, contingent on China’s commitment to more stringent controls over illicit chemical shipments. Such actions indicate a willingness to confront pressing issues like the opioid crisis in the United States while attempting to foster better economic ties. In addition, China pledged to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans and delay export restrictions on critical rare earth minerals for a year. This news is particularly significant for American farmers grappling with challenges from previous trade wars.

However, while diplomatic gestures were prominent, underlying tensions persist. Trump’s decision to skip the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit on the same day highlighted his preference for direct negotiations over multilateral engagement. Experts voiced concerns over this approach. For example, Wang Yiwei remarked on the diminished U.S. presence in APEC, suggesting an international perception that the U.S. lacks leadership and influence in the region.

As Michael Green pointed out, Trump’s erratic engagement strategy raises questions about the coherence of U.S. foreign policy. Analysts like Go Myong-hyun warn that neglecting collective diplomacy could diminish U.S. standing in an area historically viewed as a stabilizing force. This suggests a larger pattern wherein America’s influence is at risk amid shifting global dynamics.

The economic implications of the meeting are clear but remain cautiously optimistic. The postponement of the investigation into Chinese shipbuilding subsidies and the reduction in tariffs signal a willingness on both sides to stabilize trade relations. Nevertheless, the delays surrounding rare earth mineral restrictions will merely provide temporary relief rather than a long-term solution to economic dependencies.

Meanwhile, Trump’s ongoing concerns about China’s expanding nuclear capabilities add a complex layer to the dialogue. His directive to restart nuclear weapons testing serves as a reminder of the defense challenges that complicate diplomatic efforts. Analysts assert that the current consensus positions China as a rival to the U.S., contradicting the cooperative spirit suggested by the “G2” concept promoted during the summit.

While Trump’s intention to foster a co-leadership model between the two nations is notable, critiques arise over what is perceived as an elevation of China’s status. Jianlu Bi posited that Trump’s language reflects a recognition of China’s growing stature on the global stage. However, this perspective contrasts sharply with long-standing U.S. alliances and could embolden adversaries rather than strengthen partnerships.

The optics of the meeting reveal a stark difference in engagement styles. While Trump’s team included top officials, Xi’s controlled demeanor during the post-meeting press availability suggested a more restrained stance. His continued participation in the APEC summit highlighted a commitment to multilateralism—a contrast to Trump’s unilateral approach.

For China, the message is clear: it aims to position itself as a leader in discussions affecting the Asia-Pacific region. Ban Kil Joo emphasized that collaborative efforts are essential to addressing global challenges, pointing to the risks posed by a vacuum in leadership when one nation steps back.

Despite varying opinions on the feasibility of the “G2” model, the summit undeniably shifted focus back to the U.S. and China. Trump’s assessment—that the meeting produced “defined outcomes, firm commitments”—suggests a strategic victory from his perspective. Yet, whether this approach can foster long-term stability or deepen divisions remains a significant question for analysts and policymakers alike.