Following the Trump-Xi summit, public attention has largely focused on the agreements reached by the two leaders. However, from the perspective of U.S.-China economic and trade relations, the summit outcomes are not the endpoint. Whether subsequent commitments are implemented and how the two sides address compliance disputes will be critical to determining whether bilateral tensions continue to ease. The U.S.-China negotiating model is gradually shifting away from comprehensive agreements toward item-by-item negotiations, phased implementation, and rolling reviews.
Trump-Xi Summit Is Not the Endpoint as Implementation Becomes the Key Focus
Daniel Liu, Director of the Regional Development Study Center at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER), said that following the May 2026 Beijing summit, the United States and China exchanged views on a trade and investment committee, agricultural purchases, commercial aircraft transactions, tariffs, and other issues. However, progress on some commitments has remained limited. China, for example, initially proposed purchasing US$30 billion in U.S. agricultural products, but the final volume may fall short of the original target. Plans to purchase Boeing commercial aircraft and to establish the trade and investment committee also continue to face national security and policy concerns on both sides.
Rare-earth supplies further illustrate the gap between commitments and actual implementation. Even if China pledges to maintain supplies, U.S. companies remain concerned about the speed and predictability of export licensing. For businesses, the effectiveness of any agreement will ultimately depend on whether they can obtain the necessary products, whether deliveries remain stable, and whether supply chains can operate normally.
U.S.-China Trade Talks Shift from Sweeping Deals to Itemized Bargaining
Liu indicated that U.S.-China negotiations may gradually shift from sweeping agreements covering tariffs, intellectual property rights, subsidies, and market access to shorter lists that break disputes into specific items. For example, the United States could adjust tariffs on certain goods in exchange for increased Chinese purchases of agricultural products or for improvements to rare-earth export licensing. If the United States eases specific market or technology restrictions, China could provide corresponding market access. This model may make progress on individual issues easier, but it also produces more fragmented agreements. Failure to fulfill any single commitment could prompt either side to reimpose tariffs, export controls, or investment restrictions.
Notably, the latest trade truce includes a deadline, indicating that both sides continue to use time limits to manage negotiations and implementation. Before the deadline, the United States will assess whether China has fulfilled commitments on agricultural purchases, rare-earth supplies, and other matters. China will monitor whether the United States has adjusted certain tariffs and related market and technology restrictions. Liu said the two sides apply different standards when assessing compliance. These differences could lead to conflicting determinations and increase the risk of repeated policy reversals.
Deadline-Based Management Increases Policy Uncertainty, Requiring Companies to Strengthen Supply Chain and Compliance Strategies
This development also shows that the global economic and trade environment is gradually shifting from straightforward rules-based management toward greater emphasis on outcome management. Market access, tariffs, export controls, investment screening, government procurement, and other policy instruments are increasingly intertwined. Companies now face not only changes in individual tariff rates but also complex combinations of policies and supply chain risks.
Taiwanese companies should not interpret a short-term easing of U.S.-China tensions as a sign of long-term stability. Liu said companies should continue monitoring tariff changes and tracking compliance requirements related to export controls, rules of origin, end uses, and transaction counterparties. They should establish distinct product and supply chain arrangements for different markets. For sensitive items such as rare earths, semiconductors, equipment, and critical components, companies should plan alternative sources, maintain buffer inventories, and establish contractual contingency mechanisms in advance.
Assessments of the Trump-Xi summit should therefore focus not only on the number of agreements announced on the day of the meeting. Observers should continue monitoring whether purchases increase, critical raw materials are exported without disruption, and tariff adjustments are actually implemented. U.S.-China economic and trade relations are gradually settling into a pattern of short-term agreement management alongside persistent long-term competition. Companies must therefore look beyond costs and market demand and incorporate policy changes and supply chain resilience into their business decisions.
Author: CIER Editorial Team
Date: September 29, 2026