Trump-Xi Summit Produces Promises, Not Deals, Experts Say
CBS News reported Sunday that last week’s summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping produced optimistic rhetoric from both governments, but trade specialists say the meeting fell well short of a landmark breakthrough on China trade deals.
Trump declared the Beijing trip an “incredible visit” and pointed to what he called “fantastic trade deals.” Chinese officials signaled a willingness to deepen cooperation. Yet analysts argued the announcements lacked the substance needed to move markets or reshape the bilateral relationship.
Summit Delivered Words, Not Binding Agreements
Former US Trade Representative negotiator Wendy Cutler, now at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told CBS News she had anticipated concrete mega-purchases of American agriculture, energy, and aircraft. Those announcements, she said, never fully materialized.
David Meale, head of China practice at Eurasia Group, struck a cautious tone. He noted neither side produced a detailed joint statement, though he stopped short of declaring the summit a failure. Both governments, he suggested, may still be finalizing terms.
A White House fact sheet described the outcomes as advancing “strategic stability” built on “fairness and reciprocity,” but specifics on energy and commodity volumes remained sparse.
Boeing Scores a Partial Win
One clear beneficiary was Boeing. Trump announced China had agreed to purchase 200 aircraft, with the potential for that figure to climb toward 750 planes. Boeing confirmed the deal represented a meaningful reopening of the Chinese market to new orders and called the trip a success.
Despite the announcement, Boeing shares slid 3.8% on Friday, suggesting investors viewed the initial order size as underwhelming relative to pre-summit expectations. Capital Economics echoed that sentiment.
A Pattern of Deals That Dissolve
Erica Downs, a China energy policy scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, noted that verbal pledges on oil purchases carry no binding force. China, she said, had not committed to specific volumes or timelines.
The caution from analysts carries historical weight. Trump’s 2017 Beijing visit produced a headline agreement involving nearly $84 billion in energy and manufacturing investment. That deal collapsed as diplomatic tensions deepened over subsequent years.
Cutler and other experts noted this summit need not be the final word. Negotiators from both sides could finalize detailed agreements in the weeks ahead. The world’s two largest economies, they argued, have every incentive to keep talking.
Agricultural commitments were slightly clearer. The White House said China pledged to purchase at least $17 billion in US farm goods over three years and restored market access for hundreds of American beef facilities.
Read Next: Fed Holds Rates Steady as Trade Uncertainty Clouds Outlook
