[New York = E-Daily Seong Joowon Correspondent] While U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping succeeded in preventing a resurgence of the trade war and stabilizing bilateral relations through their summit, analysts say they failed to alter the fundamental dynamics of the U.S.-China strategic competition. Since no clear breakthrough was achieved on key issues such as trade, artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan, and rare earth elements, analysts say this summit was less a new beginning for U.S.-China relations and more of an extension of a “tactical truce.”

Daniel Kritenbrink, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, assessed the summit during a press briefing hosted by The Asia Group (TAG) on the 25th (local time), stating, “While it almost certainly contributed to short-term tactical stability, it did not alter the fundamentally competitive nature of U.S.-China relations.” While noting that the summit placed more emphasis on “optics over outcomes” and “symbolism over substance,” he said, “If the goal was to stabilize U.S.-China relations and extend the fragile truce, it should be viewed as a success.”
Allen Carlson, a professor of government at Cornell University, offered a more sober assessment. In an interview with E-Daily on the 27th, he said, “This summit fell short of even the low expectations many people had prior to the talks,” adding that “the list of concrete outcomes is meager or virtually nonexistent.” He went on to note that the two countries merely agreed to extend the trade truce, discuss AI regulations, and strengthen cultural exchanges, pointing out, “While the appearance of a stable relationship was created, there was almost no substantive content to back it up.”
Daniel Russel, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, also described the summit as “disappointing.” He noted, “It is fortunate that the two leaders are trying to prevent the relationship from spiraling toward the brink,” but added, “Although the two leaders put on a cordial show, the two countries continue to engage in fierce competition over trade, technology, Taiwan, defense, rare earth minerals, and industrial policy.”
However, some observers believe that this meeting prevented a sudden resurgence of U.S.-China tensions and secured time to continue follow-up negotiations. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Cretenbrink characterized this not as the beginning of a new U.S.-China relationship, but rather as an “extension of the tactical truce or tactical détente” that has been ongoing since last year. He noted that the two countries may resort to competitive measures again in the future and predicted that whether the truce continues will depend on whether additional tangible results follow.
The assessment of these talks is expected to be determined anew during the implementation process. In trade, tariffs and rare earth supplies remain key variables, while in technology, AI cooperation and export controls are key, and in security, the Taiwan issue remains a key variable. Former Deputy Secretary Russell emphasized, “Glamorous protocol and procedures do not necessarily signify progress,” adding, “Announcements made at summit meetings have not been a reliable predictor of actual implementation.”