The high-stakes trade negotiations between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping during Trump's first term frequently garnered global attention, often culminating in temporary agreements hailed as breakthroughs. However, a deeper examination reveals that these summits and deals largely served to "buy time" in an escalating economic conflict, rather than forge genuine trust or resolve the fundamental disagreements plaguing the world's two largest economies. The resulting truces offered fleeting reprieves to markets and businesses but ultimately left the structural issues unaddressed, paving the way for continued geopolitical and economic friction.
The economic confrontation between the United States and China intensified significantly beginning in January 2018. The Trump administration initiated a series of tariffs and trade barriers, citing long-standing grievances such as China's alleged unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer requirements, and a substantial trade deficit in favor of China. Washington argued that these practices distorted global trade and harmed American businesses. In response, Beijing accused the U.S. of engaging in protectionism and retaliated with its own tariffs, escalating into a tit-for-tat trade war that sent ripples through global supply chains and financial markets.
Throughout 2018 and 2019, Trump and Xi held several high-profile meetings, often on the sidelines of international summits, in attempts to de-escalate the burgeoning trade war. A notable encounter occurred during the G20 Buenos Aires summit on December 1, 2018. Following bilateral discussions, both leaders agreed to a 90-day ceasefire, postponing planned increases in U.S. tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. During this period, negotiations were slated to address critical structural issues, including forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, and non-tariff barriers. China, in turn, pledged to purchase a "very substantial" but unspecified amount of U.S. agricultural, energy, and industrial products. While this temporary truce was seen as an opportunity for China to "catch its breath," analysts quickly noted its fragile nature, dependent on the outcome of future, complex negotiations.
Another significant pause in hostilities emerged after the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, in June 2019. Here, President Trump agreed to lift some restrictions on Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and delay new tariffs on Chinese goods, allowing trade negotiations to restart. In exchange, China reportedly agreed to resume large-scale purchases of U.S. farm products, though Chinese officials did not immediately confirm this commitment. These agreements, much like their predecessors, were characterized as tactical pauses designed to avert a deeper economic crisis, rather than signaling a fundamental shift in the contentious trade relationship. The recurrent pattern of escalation followed by a temporary truce highlighted the immediate relief sought by both sides, often under pressure from domestic economic concerns, but without tackling the core structural issues that fueled the dispute.
The culmination of these early talks came with the signing of the "Phase One" trade deal in January 2020. This agreement, lauded by the Trump administration, saw China commit to purchasing an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services over two years. It also included provisions addressing intellectual property, technology transfer, and currency practices, while some existing tariffs were rolled back. Despite its fanfare, the Phase One deal's impact was limited. China struggled to meet its purchasing targets, a challenge exacerbated by the temporary collapse in global goods trade during the COVID-19 pandemic. More critically, the deal did not dismantle the vast majority of existing tariffs, nor did it fully resolve the deeper, systemic issues that underpinned the trade conflict. It provided a framework for engagement but steered clear of the more contentious industrial policies and state subsidies central to China's economic model.
The consistent refrain from analysts and observers was that these talks, while preventing a full-blown economic rupture at various junctures, fundamentally bought time without building trust. The underlying structural distrust between the two nations persisted, especially concerning technology, intellectual property, and Taiwan. Experts highlighted that tariffs were often deployed as "instruments of geopolitical strategy" rather than purely economic tools. The US sought to curb alleged intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, while China resisted reforms that could compromise its state-driven economic development plans, such as the Made in China 2025 initiative. These fundamental ideological and strategic differences proved too deep to be bridged by a series of transactional agreements. The perception was that both sides used the negotiations to gain leverage, with China accelerating efforts to diversify its trade relationships after the initial trade war.
In conclusion, the series of Trump-Xi trade talks during the former president's initial term ultimately served as a mechanism for managing an intense economic rivalry rather than resolving it. While temporary agreements and "phase one" deals offered crucial breathing room for industries and economies under pressure, they conspicuously failed to foster mutual trust or address the foundational disagreements over intellectual property, market access, and state economic practices. These interactions established a pattern where tactical truces forestalled immediate crises but left the deeper structural chasm between Washington and Beijing largely intact. The legacy of these talks underscores that without genuine trust and a shared understanding of fair trade principles, the superpower rivalry in the economic sphere is likely to endure, continuing to shape global commerce and international relations for the foreseeable future.
