Photo: Well This Is News
Trump courts Beijing while Congress warns against 'unlawful' Cuba military moves
Trump-Xi summit offers chance to reset relationship as China seeks partnership
Trump meets Xi in Beijing as US-China ties face trade, AI, and Iran tensions
Key Takeaways
- Hundreds of billions in tariffs imposed since 2018 remain in place and fundamentally constrain what any improved trade relationship can actually achieve despite both leaders' optimistic rhetoric.
- Neither side has publicly acknowledged Taiwan as a negotiating issue despite it determining every calculation beneath the table in bilateral strategy.
- Both leaders need political wins from the summit for domestic reasons, which means improved atmospherics can be declared as success without requiring either side to change actual policy.
The Analysis
Trump's arrival in Beijing represents a moment both sides are deliberately framing as a reset, but what neither is emphasizing is how little structural leverage either country actually retains from the previous agreement.
Here is what actually happened: Trump landed in China for bilateral talks with President Xi Jinping. Xi opened the meeting by saying the countries should be "partners, not rivals." Trump said the relationship would be "better than ever." The agenda includes trade, artificial intelligence policy, and the ongoing Iran conflict. Chinese state media and security apparatus reflected what The Guardian described as "scepticism" about the visit, with heightened security and rising nationalist sentiment in Beijing. Meanwhile, 30 members of Congress sent Trump a letter warning against military operations against Cuba, framing potential moves as "unlawful."
The left's framing emphasizes three things: Trump's volatility (he might pursue military adventures), China's rising confidence (US decline has fueled nationalism), and American institutional concerns (Congress is pushing back). The Guardian's language about "mass suffering" and "unlawful" operations uses legal and humanitarian framings. The headline "US apparent decline has fuelled growing Chinese nationalism" plants the narrative that this summit happens from a position of American weakness, not strength. The coverage of Congressional resistance to Cuba moves casts Trump as isolated even within his own government.
The right's framing stresses potential. Xi's call for "partnership" and Trump's promise of improvement are treated as genuine openings, not performative rhetoric. The focus lands on bilateral opportunity, not structural decline. NBC's coverage emphasizes Xi's actual words, "We should be partners, not rivals," as a signal of diplomatic willingness. This framingsilently omits the history of broken commitments on both sides and treats the summit as a fresh start.
What neither side is naming is the treaty and agreement architecture that has collapsed. The Trump administration withdrew from the Phase One Trade Agreement in Trump's first term. The prior bilateral investment treaty negotiations stalled. The intellectual property commitments were ignored or retaliated against. China has not honored open market commitments made in the 2000s. More critically, both sides are pretending that tariff structures imposed since 2018, which remain in place, somehow don't constrain what any "better than ever" relationship can actually mean. You cannot have improved trade relations when punitive tariffs on hundreds of billions in goods remain the baseline.
On AI, neither side acknowledges that the competition is not negotiable because it is existential to both economies. The same is true for Taiwan, which does not appear on either countries' stated agenda but determines every calculation beneath the table.
The Iran conflict complicates both framings. Trump's maximum pressure approach against Iran remains in place. China's economic interests in Iran contradict that pressure. This is not something a summit can solve with rhetoric.
The real headline: Two leaders declaring partnership while operating within strategic constraints neither can publicly name, hoping that improved atmospherics substitute for structural agreement. Trump needs a foreign policy win. Xi needs to contain economic decline and nationalist pressure. Neither needs the other to actually change policy. The summit delivers the appearance of reset without requiring it.
Trump's Beijing visit masks a harder reality: both nations are performing diplomatic warmth while their fundamental interests remain locked in contradiction. The tariff architecture imposed since 2018 remains intact, making claims of "better than ever" trade relations structurally impossible without either side reversing years of policy. On artificial intelligence, neither country can genuinely negotiate because dominance in this sector determines their economic future. Taiwan sits unspoken beneath every discussion but governs every actual decision. Iran represents the clearest collision: Trump's maximum pressure campaign directly conflicts with China's economic interests there. What this summit actually establishes is that both leaders need the appearance of reset more than they need actual agreement, which means the institutional barriers that blocked progress under previous administrations remain untouched and newly calcified by tariff precedent and nationalist political constraints on both sides.