Trump and Xi aim for three years of stability

The summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping has generated even more noise than usual, in part because China’s AI brought up the summit. spread like wildfire. The interpretation of the summit results, as usual, differed in each capital. Most comments from the US side have, predictably, viewed the summit as “no good” as few concrete results emerged. But, unsurprisingly, the Chinese side described the meeting as a “historic reset” in the bilateral relationship.

If this asymmetry persists, it is largely because of the different political objectives and cultures of the two countries. The U.S. side generally wants immediate and specific results, because winning the news cycle matters as much politically as achieving actual victories. The Chinese side does not need to win any news cycle, for obvious reasons. Beijing therefore always prioritizes setting the tone and agreeing on a framework, after which the opening of negotiations and results expand significantly.

The reality, as a Chinese interlocutor once joked to me, is “never as bad as your media says and never as good as our media says.” It’s a good heuristic for thinking about what happened and what it means. With some distance from the summit, I think it is useful to focus on the few things that surprised me and highlight a structural dynamic that will materially determine how the US-China relationship evolves.

Three surprises

Expectations were low heading into the summit, and it’s not difficult to surpass a very low bar. Nonetheless, a few surprises were understated that may well shape U.S.-China relations in the future.

On the one hand, Xi’s treatment of Trump seems beyond expectation in some respects. If Trump’s goal was to strengthen his personal relationship with Xi Jinping and entrench the “principal-to-principal” model in managing US-China relations, then he appears to have succeeded. And Xi has demonstrated his willingness to reciprocate.

Beyond appearance and pageantry, the tête-à-tête in Zhongnanhai Gardens (the executive complex where Xi lives and works) is underappreciated as a rare and significant gesture on Xi’s part. Trump clearly acknowledged this, but more than that, Xi was demonstrating that the two leaders could come together privately to talk frankly and resolve issues.

Building on this frankness, the second surprise was Xi’s agreement for a reciprocal visit to Washington, currently scheduled for September.

Trump has already invited Xi to Washington, but did not get an immediate positive response. Whether or not Xi’s September visit was planned in advance, the immediate agreement suggests that this summit was just the first act in a longer game that will play out over the course of 2026. Xi would not be willing to come to the White House and leave empty-handed, especially as his fourth term approaches, implying that he believes something more substantial will be forged by September.

And third, Trump unexpectedly accepted China’s new framework of relations. Outcomes from the U.S. and China summits can often feel like they come from two separate meetings, with each side focusing on what matters to its domestic constituents. But this time, there was a key line in the respective displays: both sides agreed to a version of Beijing’s proposal “constructive strategic stability” framework.

Each side’s interpretation of what exactly this means likely differs. But accepting such a framework in the first place is important, because it is often politically difficult on the American side. This appears to carry Trump’s imprimatur, and it is likely that his acceptance of the framework gave Xi the green light to immediately accept the invitation to Washington.

A new structural dynamic

So what does all this come down to? The “deal” concluded in Beijing was not about planes, chips or soya; it was about decisively adopting an approach that will shape the relationship for the rest of Trump’s term: a principle-to-leader model, where responsibility rests with each leader for major decisions regarding the relationship. Trump and Xi have set the table for the next three years, and the main items on the menu are trade, technology and Taiwan.

A number of minor issues will be handled by the new trade and investment councils, which will essentially be a revived dialogue mechanism to address specific issues and maintain working relationships. But the most sensitive and intractable issues will likely be resolved between the two leaders.

Such a model has long been advocated by some on both sides. Overall, this can have a stabilizing effect because both leaders are the anchors. When the old anchors of the relationship – trade flows, people flows, capital flows – have all withered, this personalized anchor may be the best way to keep two very large ships from needlessly colliding.

Of course, this also has drawbacks and risks. For example, such a model will only play into Trump’s tendency to go independent and be convinced by the last person he speaks to – which is sure to upset his advisers on hot-button issues like Taiwan.

More importantly, the extent to which this structure holds now depends largely on the respective political strengths of Trump and Xi, who can prevent domestic politics from derailing this fragile agreement. The main short-term risks to this dynamic will therefore be the midterm elections in the United States in 2026 and the political transition in China in 2027 – both occasions which can disrupt the political environment necessary to maintain a détente driven by the leaders.

The risk is clearly higher on the American side, given Trump’s political vulnerabilities, particularly regarding the war in Iran. But it also leads to a difficult logic: a politically strong Trump is necessary for Xi to operationalize the principle-to-principle model. The longer the Iranian conflict persists, the more Trump risks emerging from the midterms weakened.

The biggest surprise then might be that Beijing and Washington align with Iran, not for energy and geopolitical reasons, but because a quick resolution to the conflict has significant implications for ensuring stability between the United States and China. As Beijing often likes messages, each side should strive not to let so-called minor issues stand in the way and derail the overall vision of the U.S.-China relationship.