Meridian China Series: Trump–Xi Outcomes & Strategic Outlook

The recent meeting between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping reinforced that the U.S.–China relationship is entering a new phase defined less by economic integration and more by strategic leverage, industrial competition, and economic security. While the meeting produced few major public deliverables, it highlighted the extent to which both governments are now focused on managing vulnerabilities tied to supply chains, technology, tariffs, and critical sectors while attempting to prevent further escalation in the bilateral relationship. 

Against that backdrop, Meridian International Center convened a closed-door U.S.-China briefing on May 18 as part of its ongoing China Series. The off-the-record discussion brought together senior leaders from across the business and policy community to examine what the Trump–Xi meeting signals for trade, market access, technology competition, global supply chains, and the broader geopolitical landscape in the months ahead. 

Here are the top takeaways from the program: 

1. The U.S.–China relationship has fundamentally shifted from integration to strategic competition

The current phase of the bilateral relationship differs significantly from the first Trump administration. Washington is no longer primarily focused on driving structural reform inside China’s economy. Instead, the priority has shifted toward protecting U.S. economic and national security interests, particularly in sectors tied to supply chains, advanced technology, and critical minerals. 

China’s use of export controls and leverage over rare earths accelerated this change in U.S. thinking. As a result, both countries are now racing to build resilience and gain leverage over the other, narrowing the space for broad economic cooperation.

2. Both sides are seeking stability, but for different reasons

The visit itself was viewed as significant because it reestablished sustained leader-level engagement after years of escalating tensions. However, Washington and Beijing are approaching “stability” from very different perspectives. 

China appears focused on preventing further aggressive economic measures and buying time amid broader uncertainty. The U.S. approach, meanwhile, ties stability to reciprocity, implementation, and fairness. This distinction was reflected in the differing public readouts released by both governments after the meeting. 

The current stability remains fragile. Upcoming tariff deadlines, Section 301 investigations, and domestic political pressures in both countries could quickly reignite tensions later this year.

3. Trade policy is moving toward selective engagement, not full decoupling

Policymakers are actively exploring frameworks that would allow trade to continue—or even expand—in “non-strategic” sectors, while maintaining tight controls in areas tied to national security. Proposals such as a “Board of Trade” point to emerging efforts to formalize this dual-track approach. 

However, the definition of “non-strategic” remains unsettled, with national security considerations continuing to reshape sector boundaries. For companies, this creates a bifurcated landscape: some industries may benefit from reduced friction and improved market access, while others remain exposed to tightening controls, tariffs, and political scrutiny. 

4. Technology competition remains unresolved and politically sensitive 

Technology and export controls continue to sit at the center of the bilateral relationship, even if they were not heavily emphasized in public messaging surrounding the summit. 

Issues tied to semiconductors, AI, critical minerals, and export controls are viewed by both governments as tools of strategic leverage rather than traditional trade policy instruments. While there were indications that AI discussions occurred during the meeting, details remain limited and politically sensitive on both sides. 

At the same time, companies continue adapting to evolving restrictions through supply chain diversification, alternative sourcing strategies, and technological workarounds. That dynamic is likely to continue regardless of periods of diplomatic stabilization.

5. Symbolism and signaling still matter for global business

Although the meeting did not produce many clear deliverables, the symbolism surrounding the visit carried real weight for multinational companies operating in China. 

The presence of major U.S. CEOs, continued leader-level engagement, and announcements of future meetings all send important signals throughout the Chinese system, particularly at the provincial and regulatory levels where many business decisions are implemented. 

At the same time, the current moment should not be overinterpreted as a return to pre-competition economic engagement. Political scrutiny around China remains intense in Washington, and companies perceived as overly enthusiastic about China engagement could face domestic backlash.