Trump/Xi Summit Keeps Taiwan in the Background — Publicly, at Least
China elevates Taiwan warning while the White House stresses trade, energy and fentanyl cooperation amid mixed signals on agricultural progress
The first day of the summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in Beijing underscored how carefully both governments are trying to balance cooperation with strategic rivalry. Link to the May 14 Updates for additional summit coverage.
The clearest example is Taiwan.
According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Trump that if the Taiwan issue is “handled poorly,” it could create an “extremely dangerous situation” — language clearly intended to remind both domestic and international audiences that Beijing still considers Taiwan its top geopolitical red line.
Yet notably, the White House readout made no mention of Taiwan at all. Instead, the U.S. summary emphasized areas where the administration believes tangible progress may be possible: Chinese purchases of U.S. goods, fentanyl precursor enforcement, energy cooperation and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open amid the Iran conflict.
That divergence in messaging appears intentional.
Beijing wanted Taiwan visibly inserted into the summit narrative. Washington, at least during the opening phase, appears determined to avoid allowing Taiwan tensions to dominate the trip publicly while negotiations continue behind closed doors.
The tone from Trump himself has also been unusually restrained. So far, he has largely stayed on message, avoided impromptu escalation with reporters and refrained from social media commentary that could overshadow the summit atmosphere. The administration clearly wants the optics of a stable superpower summit before the talks move into more contentious territory involving technology restrictions, tariffs and security matters.
Agriculture remains one of the most important undercurrents of the summit, but even there the messaging has become complicated.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier signaled that expectations for a dramatic new soybean agreement should be tempered, saying existing commitments under the Busan framework meant “soybeans are all taken care of.” That comment contributed to overnight weakness in soybean futures because traders had hoped for additional large-scale Chinese soybean purchases beyond the previously discussed 25 million metric tons annually over three years.
Meanwhile, conflicting reports surrounding U.S. beef exports to China highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the broader trade relationship. Initial reports from Bloomberg, Reuters, the New York Times and Chinese customs data indicated Beijing had renewed export licenses for hundreds of U.S. beef plants — including facilities operated by Tyson Foods and Cargill — in what was widely interpreted as a goodwill gesture tied to the summit. But later Thursday, Reuters reported that many of those same approvals appeared to revert back to “expired” status on China’s customs website only hours after the renewals became public, creating confusion over whether the reinstatements were official, temporary or part of ongoing negotiations.
That episode may ultimately reflect the broader nature of the Trump/Xi talks themselves: both sides appear willing to signal goodwill publicly while still preserving leverage behind the scenes.
The beef issue is especially important politically because U.S. cattle producers have pushed aggressively for restored Chinese market access after exports collapsed from roughly $1.7 billion in 2022 to near $500 million in 2025 following licensing disputes and broader trade tensions.
Meanwhile, additional agriculture-related details could still emerge later from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who has been shaping the administration’s proposed “Board of Trade” framework with China. The concept is designed not only to encourage Chinese purchases of U.S. commodities, energy and manufactured goods, but also to establish compliance mechanisms that monitor whether China actually follows through on commitments over time.
That enforcement component may matter more to the administration than headline purchase numbers themselves. After years of disputes over implementation of earlier trade agreements, Trump officials increasingly appear focused on building systems that can verify and pressure compliance rather than relying solely on public pledges.
For Xi, the summit offers an opportunity to stabilize relations during a period of economic pressure inside China while projecting strength and control internationally.
For Trump, the trip delivers the high-profile state-visit imagery and geopolitical stagecraft he values politically.
But the summit’s first day also showed that the fundamental tensions — Taiwan, technology controls, tariffs and strategic competition — remain unresolved beneath the ceremonial diplomacy. And China’s decision to publicly emphasize Taiwan while the White House avoided the topic altogether suggests both governments are still managing very different political priorities, even as they attempt to present the appearance of renewed cooperation
