The “March of the Volunteers,” China’s national anthem, was written during World War II as a rallying cry to resist Japan’s occupation of mainland China. The anthem fostered unity during China’s darkest hours and now offers insight into the country’s contemporary political climate. President Xi Jinping, in power since 2012, often draws on the historical traditions of the anthem to reinforce the idea that China will act with one voice against outside powers.
On the morning of May 14, 2026, President Donald Trump attended a historic meeting with Xi in Beijing, marking the first visit by a U.S. president to China in nearly a decade. It is clear from the summit that China remains a rival with global influence comparable to that of the United States and that the future of the U.S.-China relationship will continue to be shaped by uncertainty.
Trump and Xi walked away with mostly symbolic victories from the summit: China and the United States both agreed to reduce tariffs on agricultural trade, without presenting a clear implementation plan. The White House said China had agreed to buy $17 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products each year, which would bring U.S. imports to China to a record high. Americans will have to wait and see if this is materially realistic, because for this to happen, Xi would need to act quickly and drop retaliatory tariffs.
No clear resolution has emerged between the two leaders on major issues like Taiwan and the ongoing war in Iran, despite Trump’s description of the talks. The Trump administration has delayed a $14 billion U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, apparently conditioned on maintaining Xi’s approval to preserve trade deals with China.
Trump shared that Xi has pledged not to provide military equipment to Iran, but it is difficult to take Xi’s words at face value. The Chinese government has provided Iran with dual-use technologies, such as motors and batteries found in Iranian drones, while denying providing weapons to anyone.
Since the summit, the phrase “constructive relationship of strategic stability” has emerged to describe the relationship that Trump and Xi have agreed to pursue. Constructive strategic stability constitutes an unprecedented framework in U.S.-China relations, as it recognizes competition as a reality while requiring mutual respect.
Previous administrations embraced economic interdependence with China, but with the expectation that integration would encourage democratic reforms. It appears that Trump instead accepts China for the authoritarian state that it is, characterized by widespread censorship, one-party rule, and the absence of free and fair elections.
“This new phrase that they coined, building a strategic stability relationship, seems to say that there might be a new status quo,” said David Bachman, an associate professor at the Jackson School of International Studies and chair of the Chinese studies program at the UW. “Neither China nor the United States really feels comfortable treating another country as an equal. China is clearly not going to follow or converge on an American model.”
Instead of focusing on ideological differences with China, Trump views the relationship as a trade deal. Tactics such as aggressive tariffs are being used to pressure Xi into buying more U.S. exports, as businesses have struggled amid weakening demand for technology, aviation and industrial equipment.
“The Chinese market offers a great opportunity for expansion,” said Susan Whiting, a political science professor specializing in comparative Chinese politics. “As [China] develops more technological capabilities… they could be incentivized to favor domestic companies.
China’s state-sponsored drive for self-reliance has accelerated under Xi. This, coupled with Trump’s aggressive tariffs, has reduced U.S. export opportunities.
“We can see, even before the first Trump administration, that American companies faced a less hospitable environment in China for their products,” Whiting said.
It is uncertain whether future administrations will view U.S.-China relations as purely transactional, with no room for ideological critique. The reality is that the United States remains economically interdependent on China, through technology, trade, and global supply chains. Currently, nations are linked by a rivalry in which neither side holds decisive leverage over the other. However, the Taiwan issue could tip the scales in favor of one side.
Taiwan has been an economic powerhouse since the 1990s, following the creation of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which manufactures the majority of semiconductors in the world. Semiconductors form the basis of microchips, which are used in almost all modern technologies.
If Taiwan were to be annexed to China — a goal Xi would like to achieve during his lifetime — China would take control of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, securing a major strategic advantage in global technology that could weaken U.S. influence.
Treating Taiwan as a bargaining chip between two world powers neglects the free will of its people and their democratic self-determination. My mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Taiwan, and as someone who identifies with the Chinese diaspora, this flashpoint in U.S.-China relations feels deeply personal rather than purely geopolitical. Austronesian indigenous groups have inhabited the island for 6,000 years, and China has no territorial right to govern these peoples – nor the right to govern ethnic Chinese who renounced the People’s Republic of China.
Taiwan’s dominance in semiconductor manufacturing provides important geopolitical protection against Chinese invasion, as destruction of its infrastructure would lead to global economic shocks. Taiwan Semiconductor, a company with the overwhelming majority of global semiconductor market share, is closely tied to the Taiwanese government.
“The fact is that 90% of the most advanced chips in the world are produced by Taiwan Semiconductor,” Bachman said. “If there was a conflict…it would lead us into a depression. It would have devastating consequences for the United States, for China and of course for Taiwan, as well as global consequences.”
Perhaps one encouraging lesson from the summit is that the continuing rivalry between the United States and China does not eliminate the possibility of cooperation. If the United States and China enter an era of strategic stability, it is to be expected that while competition exists, the potential for global crisis management also exists. Shared global challenges such as climate change, public health and pandemics, as well as global economic stability will require mutual engagement, areas in which the two powers have demonstrated some (albeit imperfect) alignment.
“As the two largest economies, we have a duty to the rest of the world to engage in positive action to improve the global environment – not just in the narrow sense of climate change, but also in the global management of issues,” Bachman said.
The United States should view its pan-Asian and Chinese diaspora communities not with suspicion, but as a source of strength in navigating this complex rivalry. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the rise of McCarthyism during the Cold War era, the rise of hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims following the September 11 attacks, and the rise of anti-Asian bigotry during the COVID-19 pandemic are notable examples of international conflicts coinciding with the erosion of civil liberties.
“Another indicator of success would be avoiding anti-Chinese conflicts. [and] anti-Asian racism or scapegoating,” Bachman said.
Incorporating Asian American voices into diplomacy and policymaking will be paramount to moving the U.S.-China relationship forward. Many of us have a complex understanding of China’s political history that will contribute to a meaningful debate. As we enter a new era of strategic stability with China, maintaining diplomatic channels for crisis management and deferring to the voices of Asian Americans will put us in the best position to bring closer U.S.-China relations.
Contact contributing writer Sydney Stark at [email protected]. X: @sydneystark. Blue sky: @sydneystark.bsky.social.
Do you like what you read? Support high-quality student journalism by making a donation here.
