Trump–Xi Meeting in South Korea: One-Sided Praise, Cold Optics, and Little Substance

The much-anticipated meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea — staged between Trump’s departure from the APEC summit and Xi’s arrival for a separate two-day program — offered high political theater but little measurable progress. The handshake was stiff, the smiles brief, and the substance thin.

A One-Sided Warmth

Moments before cameras were ushered out, Trump opened the meeting with effusive praise, calling Xi “more than my best friend” and describing the Chinese leader as “a very smart man who loves his country deeply.”

Xi, notably, did not reciprocate. His expression remained neutral, and the handshake appeared tense and brief — a moment that set the tone for what followed: polite formality without warmth.

Trump’s delegation included:

• Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce

• Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

• Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary

• Susie Wiles, Chief of Staff

• Jeffrey Greer, U.S. Trade Representative

• David Perdue, U.S. Ambassador to China

Across from them sat Xi’s senior team:

• Cai Qi — Director of the General Office of the CCP Central Committee (considered Xi Jinping’s de facto Chief of Staff)

• Wang Yi — Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission

• He Lifeng — Vice Premier and Lead Negotiator on Economic and Trade Matters

• Zheng Shanjie — Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)

• Ma Zhaoxu — Executive Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs (minister-rank)

• Wang Wentao — Minister of Commerce

Absent was Li Chenggang, China’s longtime international trade representative, signaling Beijing’s intent to keep the discussion tightly controlled.

Xi’s Formal Tone

Xi’s opening remarks were restrained and carefully phrased, with none of Trump’s personal warmth:

“It is normal for the two leading economies of the world to have frictions now and then. In the face of winds, waves, and challenges, we should stay the right course, navigate through the complex landscape, and ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China–U.S. relations.”

He added that:

“China’s development and revitalization goes hand in hand with President Trump’s vision to ‘Make America Great Again.’ Our two countries are fully able to help each other succeed and prosper together.”

And concluded with a broad diplomatic gesture:

“China and the U.S. can jointly shoulder our responsibility as major countries, and work together to accomplish more great and concrete things for the good of our two countries and the whole world.”

The meeting lasted about 1 hour and 40 minutes. As it ended, the leaders shook hands and Xi’s motorcade departed almost immediately. Trump’s entourage lingered, then left later for the tarmac, where Air Force One took off for Washington. Xi remained in South Korea for his own two-day schedule of bilateral meetings.

Trump’s Airborne Triumph

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump rated the encounter:

“On a scale of zero to ten, with ten being the best, I would say the meeting was a twelve.”

He said Taiwan “never came up.”

On nuclear testing, Trump was cryptic:

“It had to do with others. They all seem to be nuclear testing. It will be announced. We have testing sites. If they’re going to test, we have to test.”

He floated a possible trilateral discussion with Russia and China:

“Denuclearization would be a tremendous thing and it's something we are actually talking to Russia about, and China would be added to that if we do something.”

The remark came just days after Russia conducted two high-profile nuclear-capable weapons tests — the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile on October 21, and the Poseidon underwater drone on October 29, both confirmed by Moscow. While neither involved a live nuclear detonation, the tests underscore Russia’s continuing expansion of its nuclear delivery systems. Against that backdrop, Trump’s suggestion that “if they’re going to test, we have to test” raised concern that Washington could be drifting toward a new phase of nuclear competition rather than restraint.

Tariffs, Fentanyl, and a Vague ‘Deal’

Trump claimed his administration had cut tariffs on Chinese goods from 57 to 47 percent, crediting progress on fentanyl enforcement:

“We agreed he was going to work very hard to stop the flow… I put a 20 percent tariff on China because of the fentanyl. Based on his statements today, I reduced it by 10 percent effective immediately.”

He then announced a new year-to-year “deal” with China:

“We have a deal. Every year we’ll renegotiate the deal. The deal will go on for a long time — long beyond the year.”

He boasted of “tremendous amounts of soybeans and other farm products to be purchased immediately,” though U.S. officials clarified that China’s $72 million soybean order was a symbolic gesture placed shortly before the meeting, not a new agreement. That figure pales in comparison to the roughly $12 billion in U.S. soybean sales to China in 2024.

Trump also noted that no new Chinese investments in the U.S. were discussed and that “Ukraine came up very strongly.”

When asked about Beijing’s oil imports from Russia, he replied simply:

“The oil, he’s been buying oil from Russia for a long time… we didn’t really discuss the oil.”

Energy and Alaska: A Curious Proposal

In a lengthy Truth Social post afterward, Trump claimed that Xi had agreed to consider purchasing American energy, including a potential deal in Alaska:

“A very large-scale transaction may take place concerning the purchase of oil and gas from the great State of Alaska… Chris Wright, Doug Burgum, and our respective energy teams will be meeting to see if such an Energy Deal can be worked out.”

The proposal, tying Chinese purchases to U.S. energy resources in Alaska, likely raised eyebrows in Ottawa — any large-scale energy arrangement in the region inevitably intersects with shared Arctic routes and continental infrastructure involving Canada.

It also lands uncomfortably close to something Moscow has already signaled: that Trump discussed in Anchorage a three-way structure in Alaska that would involve Russian and Chinese participation in U.S.-based energy projects — a Russia–China–U.S. “triple trouble” business alignment on American soil.

As an analyst, I would note that this mirrors Trump’s earlier “Golden Dome” language, which he has pitched as a continental security and energy shield meant to protect North America from Russia and China. Yet here he appears to be inviting both Russia and China directly into that same Alaskan energy space. That’s not protection — that’s partnership. It blurs the line between defending the continent from Moscow and Beijing, and cutting them in..

Xi Strategic, Russia Untouched

Xi left the meeting with no public statement. Taiwan was not mentioned, Russia’s war in Ukraine was discussed only in generalities, and China’s growing role in supplying and financing Moscow went unchallenged.

Trump, meanwhile, praised Xi’s engagement as “strong” and “constructive,” telling reporters:

“We’re both going to work together to see if we can get something done.”

A sentence whose key word, once again, was if.

Expert Analysis: A Temporary Truce

Wendy Cutler, Senior Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute and former U.S. Deputy Trade Negotiator, observed:

“The long-awaited Trump–Xi meeting was an important step in stabilizing our bilateral relationship by turning down the temperature on recent escalatory actions by both countries. However, the announced outcomes do little to resolve underlying structural issues… including excess capacity, excessive subsidies, and unfair trade practices. As such, this truce may be short-lived.”

She noted that “Beijing drove a hard bargain, insisting on getting paid for every concession it made.”

Rorry Daniels, ASPI Managing Director, added:

“Presidents Trump and Xi succeeded in stemming the active bleeding in the relationship, but whether the bandage will stick remains to be seen… Continuous negotiation will be a feature of U.S.–China relations moving forward, with all the associated market and political volatility we have seen over the last six months.”

Daniels pointed out that Taipei may feel temporary relief that Taiwan was absent from the agenda, but:

“Discomfort may set in over time about why it didn’t come up and what its absence in Beijing’s agenda means for China’s Taiwan policy in the long term.”

Following the meeting, the Chinese Embassy in Washington released a brief statement saying:

“The two presidents agreed to enhance cooperation in economic, trade, energy and other fields and to encourage more people-to-people exchanges. The two presidents agreed to maintain interactions on a regular basis. President Trump looked forward to visiting China early next year, and invited President Xi to visit the United States.”

The statement underscored Beijing’s preference for controlled optimism and continuity, steering clear of any mention of tariffs, fentanyl, or the underlying disputes that defined the talks.

Optics Over Outcomes

Trump celebrated the meeting as a “12 out of 10.” Yet by every measurable standard, the results were modest:

• Tariffs cut without reciprocity.

• A small, symbolic farm-goods purchase.

• No commitments on Taiwan, Ukraine, or Russia.

• A vague annual “concept of a deal” without enforcement.

• A handshake that signaled imbalance rather than trust.

Xi left with leverage and calm; Trump left with soundbites and applause.

Today, Chinese President Xi Jinping is already leading the news cycle from the APEC summit.

Xinhua News Agency

According to Xinhua News Agency, Xi said:

“In the era of economic globalization, what is needed is not gaps of division but bridges of communication, not iron curtains of confrontation but highways of cooperation.”

Presence vs. Posturing

While Trump flew home, Xi began two full days of meetings with Canada and regional leaders at the APEC summit. Trump’s Asia tour had ended with an APEC CEO luncheon and a photo-op with Xi.

In the end, the Trump–Xi meeting delivered less a breakthrough than a broadcast — a show of warmth from one side, and strategic restraint from the other.

As I’ve written before, leadership rarely fails through confrontation.

It fails through complacency, performance, and the illusion of victory.