Little expected from summit agreement following Trump’s ‘open up’ China vow

President Donald Trump set high expectations before his crucial summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, declaring his intention to urge Xi to open China’s economy. He was accompanied by a prominent delegation of business executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang.

However, as Trump and Xi concluded their two-day meetings, observers’ expectations for the summit’s outcome were generally modest. While an extension of the one-year trade war truce, agreed upon in South Korea in October, was anticipated, the prevailing view was for a stabilization—not a revitalization—of ties between the world’s two largest economies, which are locked in a rivalry spanning trade, artificial intelligence, and the status of Taiwan.

Claire E Reade, a senior counsel at Arnold & Porter and former China specialist at the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), underscored the importance of a clear-eyed view of the relationship. Reade stated that China distrusts the US and aims to surpass it in what it perceives as long-term global competition, thereby limiting the scope for agreement.

Although the specifics of any trade agreement remained unannounced, the US side highlighted various potential business deals. In a Fox News interview, Trump claimed China would invest “hundreds of billions of dollars” in companies represented by his delegation, though he provided no further details. Trump administration officials also indicated China’s readiness to increase purchases of US agricultural goods and energy, order a significant number of Boeing aircraft, and help establish a “Board of Investment” to manage bilateral investments.

Taiyi Sun, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University, suggested that a realistic “opening up” of the Chinese market would likely commence in sectors where economic complementarity is most evident. Sun explained, “Agricultural goods such as soybeans and beef, as well as high-value-added manufacturing products like Boeing aircraft, are natural areas for expansion because they match existing Chinese demand with American export strengths.” Sun also noted the potential for a “gradual” opening for US firms in sectors like financial services, but cautioned that progress would likely be incremental rather to immediate due to political and institutional sensitivities within China.

Gabriel Wildau, a senior vice president at global business advisory firm Teneo, commented that both nations sought to address supply-chain vulnerabilities exposed by their trade war. Wildau noted that the “Iran war” likely increased US vulnerability to rare earth export controls, given the necessity to replenish depleted munition stocks. Consequently, Washington might offer tariff relief—or at least assurances against new tariffs—in exchange for Beijing’s commitment to maintaining rare earth exports.

Despite earlier agreements to roll back some trade barriers at their summit in South Korea, US-Chinese business and trade remained severely constrained after a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the average US tariff on Chinese goods stood at 47.5 percent after the South Korea summit, a significant increase from 3.1 percent before Trump’s first term. China’s average tariff on US goods similarly rose to 31.9 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2018, the think tank reported. Bilateral goods trade subsequently amounted to approximately $415 billion in 2025, a sharp decline from its 2022 peak of $690 billion.

Carsten Holz, an expert on the Chinese economy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, asserted that China now has less incentive to make concessions to the US due to the rise of its domestic industries. “Across many industrial sectors, PRC firms hold leading or controlling positions,” Holz said, concluding that the Chinese economy has little to gain from further opening to the US and is likely to offer only “largely symbolic gestures.”

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, expressed similar views on the limits of US leverage. Elms observed, “Basically, Trump expects China to buy more stuff from America and let US companies operate more freely in China.” She questioned what Trump was offering in return, suggesting it was “very little,” largely because he perceives the bilateral relationship as one where the US has been fair and China has not.

Reade, the former USTR official, reiterated that Xi would not agree to any measures that would harm Chinese interests. Instead, China might offer the US “no-cost ‘gifts’,” such as short-term actions to remove trade barriers on beef or purchases of needed US goods. However, Reade emphasized that if China acquires US tech products, it would be purely out of immediate necessity, without interfering with its long-term strategic plans to eliminate dependence on US technology.

Source link