Takeaways from the Trump-Xi White House Summit

Last week, Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met at the White House for the Chinese leader’s first state visit to the United States in more than a decade. The summit came just months after President Trump visited Beijing for a state visit in May. Talks covered trade, Taiwan, Iran, AI, fentanyl, and more. In this Experts React, scholars from across CSIS provide analysis on the outcomes of the summit, reactions around the world, and what it means for the state of U.S.-China relations.

Image

Nothingburger: Double Cheesy with Extra Protocol Sauce

Edgard D. Kagan, Senior Adviser and Freeman Chair in China Studies

Heavy on symbolism but light on substance, Xi Jinping’s September 23–25 visit to Washington highlighted the reversal in tone of U.S.-China relations over the year as well as the limited U.S. ambition for what can be accomplished with China. President Trump’s lavish welcome, which included greeting Xi on arrival, an over-the-top ceremonial welcome at the White House, and a personal tour of Marine One, reflected his desire to reinforce his personal ties with Xi as the key to stabilizing U.S.-China relations. Both nations’ readouts show minimal progress beyond general agreement on “favorable tariff treatment” for $30 billion in goods in each direction, announcement that the two leaders are “intending” to attend the November APEC Summit in China and the December G20 Summit in Miami, continued cooperation on fentanyl and other drugs, and the establishment of an “AI Dialogue.”

China reiterated its long-standing position opposing Iranian nuclear weapons, while the White House notably dropped reference to North Korean denuclearization. While Indo-Pacific nations will be relieved that President Trump did not take Xi’s bait on changing U.S. Taiwan policy, many worry that treating China so well in return for so little undermines U.S. credibility and deterrence. That both official readouts highlighted cooperation during World War II isn’t just a sign of limited progress—it reinforces Beijing’s efforts to paint Japan as a threat. Ignoring international concerns on trade imbalances and China’s massive wave of manufacturing exports was noteworthy, signaling further U.S. retreat from being the “leader of the free world.”

Image

Xi’s Attempt to Recast U.S.-China Relations: More Rosy than Reality

Bonny Lin, Director, China Power Project, and Senior Adviser

Chinese leader Xi Jinping sought to recast U.S.-China relations in a positive direction, but significant disagreements and tensions remain.

During his dinner toast, Xi focused on a U.S.-China history of friendship, overlooking many past and present areas of friction. His history lesson oddly emphasized what the United States took (George Washington “acquired” Chinese porcelain) or received. He noted how Chinese soldiers “rescued” U.S. pilots during World War II, he but failed to mention that U.S. pilots risked their lives to resupply China. He recalled that the two countries were allied against “Japanese militarist aggressors,” trying to drive a wedge between the United States and its close ally, Japan.

Xi provided deliverables on trade and fentanyl, established a dialogue on AI, and agreed to meet with President Trump two more times this year. But he did not publicly address U.S. concerns about rare earths and other critical minerals. Xi further pressed the United States to “adhere to the correct position of opposing ‘Taiwan independence’,” pushing the United States to change its policy on Taiwan.

While Xi argued that the two countries can work together internationally, there was nothing concrete. There was no Chinese commitment to stop coercing its neighbors—instead, during Xi’s state visit, Beijing blocked Manila’s resupply of Second Thomas Shoal and then launched a military exercise. China did not reiterate the U.S. position that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon,” only insisting that Iran “not develop nuclear weapons.” China has not responded to President Trump’s calls for trilateral arms control negotiations between the United States, Russia, and China.

Image

The U.S.-China Truce Is Fragile

Thomas J. Christensen, Pritzker Chair, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department

The September 2026 Trump-Xi summit extended for a few months the nearly year-long truce in what had been rising U.S.-China tensions. But looking out to the end of next year, that truce seems fragile for the following reasons:

• Economics: Beijing remains dissatisfied with U.S. embargoes on high-end semiconductor exports, U.S. restrictions on doing business with many Chinese entities, and existing tariff levels. Washington remains dissatisfied with the flow of rare earth exports to the United States and Japan.
• International Security: The Trump administration will likely be frustrated in securing an acceptable peace in the Middle East and in the Russia-Ukraine war. China is Iran’s and Russia’s biggest international supporter. China will likely help Iran rebuild its conventional military, and it will likely be exposed in so doing by foreign intelligence. U.S. economic pressure on China to sanction Iran and Russia could then follow.
• Taiwan: The Trump administration is likely to sell arms to Taiwan in the next 12 months despite China’s warning against doing so. Experts inside and outside the U.S. government think Taiwan needs more arms, there is a bipartisan consensus in Congress in favor of the sales, and the Taiwan legislature passed an extraordinarily large $30 billion special defense budget, largely to purchase U.S. arms.
• Artificial Intelligence: There is potential for cooperation on AI, as both sides have reason to fear models escaping the control of engineers. But differences over how and why to cooperate will likely prevent this issue from providing ballast for the overall U.S.-China relationship.

Image

No Long-Term Solutions

Ilaria Mazzocco, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics

Despite a welcome extension of the economic ceasefire, the summit leaves unanswered the question of what the strategic goals of U.S. China policy are today. Should any larger deal be achieved, it will only be announced later in the year, after Trump’s visit to Shenzhen in November for the APEC leaders’ meeting and Xi’s trip to Miami in December for the G20 summit, which have now been confirmed. Indeed, cynics might point to the official confirmation of these trips as a major outcome, given the broader lack of specifics on high-profile initiatives such as the Board of Investment, which the Chinese readout doesn’t even explicitly mention.

More broadly, the readouts indicate that no substantive agreement has been reached on many of the advanced technologies that both countries are most concerned about, leaving many of the underlying issues in the relationship unresolved. The only substantive area of cooperation on global governance between the two countries is the launch of the Safety Dialogue on Super Intelligence. The dialogue could provide a useful platform in the future, given rising concern in both countries regarding AI and misalignment, but its effectiveness will depend on how it is operationalized.

A reciprocal reduction in tariffs in nonsensitive imports could also have some positive impact for consumers. The move is also likely to raise concerns among other trading partners of the United States who will find their own tariff rates to be higher or comparable to those of China, a country many blame for fueling global trade imbalances through its domestic economic policy.

Image

U.S.-China Progress on Fentanyl

J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, and Michaela Simoneau, Fellow, Global Health Policy Center

While the Trump-Xi summit did not produce health security deliverables, the “constructive strategic stability” achieved between the United States and China over the past year did encourage quiet progress to control fentanyl and its chemical precursors. President Xi pledged to strengthen cooperation in counternarcotics and acknowledged progress to date in China’s official statement. The White House statement referenced recent Chinese efforts but also called for deeper, permanent enforcement actions and made no announcement to end or ease its current fentanyl-related tariff.

The October 2025 Trump-Xi summit led to surprisingly extensive cooperation between the U.S. and Chinese governments. On that occasion, China placed controls on 13 fentanyl precursor chemicals, requiring licenses for export to the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In turn, the United States reduced fentanyl-tied tariffs from 20 to 10 percent. 

Thereafter, counternarcotics cooperation intensified between law enforcement authorities, with reciprocal visits between FBI Director Kash Patel and senior Chinese security officials, the extradition of a Chinese fugitive, joint drug-trafficking operations, and additional scheduling of fentanyl precursors. In the lead-up to last week’s summit, China made 21 arrests using U.S. information, added export controls on two more precursors, and announced guidelines on sentencing fentanyl-related crimes. 

What do these promising developments indicate? First, tariffs have been proven an effective lever to win Chinese cooperation, but serious tensions persist. It is unclear when, and under what conditions, the remaining 10 percent U.S. tariff may be lifted. And second, results matter. Chinese disruptions of the fentanyl supply chain have contributed to the 50 percent decline in U.S. fentanyl-related overdose deaths since the 2022 peak and have refocused Washington’s attention. Hopefully, this work encourages quiet engagement in other health security areas, most notably dialogue to limit the use of AI to create bioweapons.

Image

Still Waiting on Substantive AI Discussions

Aalok Mehta, Director, Wadhwani AI Center

AI was already on the summit agenda, but ongoing revelations about AI agents escaping containment, along with calls from industry to pace the frontier, had increased optimism for a meaningful breakthrough on governance. Those hopes were dashed as the Trump administration made clear its focus would continue to be competitive dynamics, despite rising safety concerns on both sides of the Pacific. The net result is that things landed in a familiar place: with a promise to talk again in a few weeks. The one exception is the apparent establishment of a communications channel for AI security incidents, ostensibly modeled after the Cold War nuclear hotline, though operational details remain scant.

Exchanging email addresses and promising to talk again is a disappointingly low floor. The United States and China can establish common approaches to safety and security that do not harm their ability to compete on technological merit. That will take political will, disciplined communication, and sustained effort that mirrors the pace of AI development, however—as well as detailed discussions about technical and governance verification mechanisms to underpin any agreement.

Ultimately, making significant progress in this space will also require the United States to find clarity on its domestic AI policy. To date, Washington has prioritized support for the AI industry over responding to growing popular skepticism and creating a cohesive national regulatory framework. Without that clarity, the United States will continue to struggle to pull international allies into its regulatory orbit or approach future discussions with China with a coherent agenda.

Image

Who Will Speak for Human Rights?

Andrew Friedman, Director and Senior Fellow, Human Rights Initiative

In 2008, just hours before he would attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, President George W. Bush did not shy away from the host country’s human rights record. He raised free expression and freedom of religion in a country where both are in short supply. This trend continued with President Barack Obama, who used a 2011 private meeting with then-President Hu Jintao to hold “candid” discussions about Beijing’s human rights record.

In the weeks leading up to the Trump-Xi summit, Democratic and Republican lawmakers held hearings and events discussing Beijing’s repression on multiple fronts. Despite both congressional pressure and the bipartisan presidential history of pressing Beijing on human rights, the topic did not make the agenda. This disinterest is new.

During the Cold War, when accused of human rights violations, the Soviet Union would default to cynical “whataboutism,” pointing out violations by the United States and its allies. This trend has continued as Russia and China have worked together to redefine human rights and democracy rather than ignore them.

The United States did not use the summit to raise Beijing’s rampant repression of its Uyghur minority, its totalitarian surveillance state, or countless other human rights violations. In turn, Beijing did not work to divert attention by pointing out America’s issues such as ICE violence, efforts to silence the media, or boat strikes. In fact, days before the summit, Xie Feng, China's ambassador to the United States, called human rights a “red line.”

This summit may represent a new world in which these issues do not have a major power champion.

Image

India’s View on the Trump-Xi Summit

Aman Thakker, Fellow, Chair on India and Emerging Asia Economics

For New Delhi, the recent Trump-Xi summit sharpens a troubling contrast in Washington’s approach to its two most consequential Asian relationships. While the U.S.-China relationship remains fundamentally competitive, both sides are investing in symbolic stability. U.S.-India relations, by contrast, ought to be partnership-oriented, but recent tensions—driven by U.S. actions—have left India feeling treated more as an adversary than a partner. The lesson New Delhi draws from this contrast could reshape how it approaches Washington.

Despite the summit’s symbolism of bonhomie and emphasis on “strategic stability,” modest progress on trade, investment, and AI did little to resolve the structural sources of U.S.-China competition. Washington and Beijing continue to contest technological leadership, exploit economic dependencies for leverage, and remain divided over Taiwan.

With India, almost the reverse is true. The United States has intensified economic pressure on India after President Trump signed legislation authorizing tariffs up to 100 percent on major purchasers of Russian energy. Yet, below the surface, the relationship continues to deepen across the Quad, defense sales, military exercises, and technology investments.

This resilience should not obscure the damage of Washington’s moves. New Delhi has carefully watched Beijing translate its economic leverage over rare earth exports into greater accommodation and predictability from Washington. Continued U.S. economic pressure on India while seeking “strategic stability” with China risks convincing India that strategic alignment and partnership offer less protection from U.S. pressure than leverage does, putting at risk over 25 years of progress in the U.S.-India partnership.