China-U.S. relations stabilize, but structural tensions linger

Editor's Note: Sun Taiyi is an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States. He is also the executive editor of the Global Forum of Chinese Political Scientists' main publication, Global China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

After months of effort, U.S. President Donald Trump finally secured a phone call with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping – a positive step toward re-stabilizing the bilateral relationship. Yet, structural challenges persist, and fundamental changes are needed to ease tensions in what remains the 21st century's most consequential geopolitical partnership.

The trade truce reached during the Geneva meeting exceeded expectations. Both nations temporarily reduced tariffs by roughly 110 percent, and more importantly their rhetoric grew noticeably more conciliatory. This shift set the stage for a gradual improvement in relations after a prolonged period of strain.

However, the agreement's implementation revealed a gap in expectations. The White House interpreted China's accelerated processing of rare-earth export permits as a full lifting of restrictions – a move it believed would ease supply bottlenecks for key industries like automotive manufacturing, semiconductors and aerospace. In reality, Beijing had maintained its existing permit system, streamlining procedures as a goodwill gesture while retaining its legitimate regulatory framework. This disconnect sowed frustration in Washington when the U.S. later imposed new high-tech export controls, prompting China to reiterate its right to adjust approval timelines in line with market and trade conditions.

Tensions escalated when Washington imposed new high-tech export controls on China, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio expanded disputes into areas like student visas. The Geneva truce teetered, and a broader conflict – extending beyond trade – seemed imminent. The leaders' phone call halted this downward spiral, clarified ambiguities from Geneva, and paved the way for further engagement, whether through ministerial talks or another leaders' summit.

Despite this progress, deep-rooted obstacles endure. President Trump insists that only direct leader-to-leader negotiations can yield a China-U.S. deal. As the saying goes in Washington, "Trump is his own China desk officer" – he dictates policy while the bureaucracy merely advises. Yet this approach defies diplomatic norms and clashes with Beijing's preference for detailed, minister-level talks before leaders finalize agreements. Given these differences, reaching a comprehensive deal within the original 90-day Geneva window seems unlikely, though an extension could still produce results.

Even if a trade deal materializes, China hawks in Washington – across the executive branch, Congress, and beyond – could undermine progress. Mere hours after the phone call, the U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick lambasted China's global ambitions during a congressional hearing. While Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (a Wall Street ally) currently leads negotiations, hardliners like Peter Navarro lurk in the background. Any shift in personnel or congressional posturing could reignite instability.

Amid these challenges, China has a strategic window to recalibrate its approach. President Trump's fixation on tariffs – misguided by the belief that they are paid by foreign exporters rather than U.S. businesses and consumers – allows Beijing to step back and reshape the rules of engagement.

Recent Chinese moves hint at this strategy. When the U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), China pledged $500 million to become its top donor. As Washington abandoned global norms without alternatives, Beijing, together with 32 other nations, co-founded the International Organization of Mediation to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. While the U.S. exited the Paris Agreement (again) and regressed on climate policy, China – the world's largest manufacturer – likely already peaked its carbon emissions and has already accelerated its green transition. And when U.S. universities faced politicized scrutiny, Hong Kong expanded quotas for international students, absorbing talent displaced by American policies.

From multilateral governance to infrastructure, education and climate policy, China has projected steady global leadership. In contrast, U.S. credibility wavers – President Trump has reversed tariff policies over 50 times in his second term alone, underscoring Washington's erratic course.

While no permanent trade resolution is likely under Trump, and temporary truces may rise or fall, a broader shift is unfolding. As the U.S. retreats into unpredictability, China is positioning itself as a stabilizing force in global affairs. The rules of the game are being rewritten – not through confrontation, but by filling the voids left behind.