President Donald Trump’s recent summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping has sparked debate about whether the historic meeting represents a genuine turning point in US-China relations or simply another delaying tactic by Beijing. The White House released a fact sheet on Sunday outlining commitments made by the Chinese government during the talks. Despite renewed optimism following high-level meetings between American and communist Chinese leaders, analysts warn that caution remains necessary given China’s track record of unfulfilled promises.
Historical patterns suggest that Washington’s return to dialogue with China has traditionally provided Beijing with opportunities to postpone meaningful action while continuing problematic behavior. The fentanyl crisis exemplifies this pattern of broken commitments that has persisted across multiple US administrations.
Xi’s repeated fentanyl promises remain unfulfilled across four administrations
The deadly synthetic opioid has fueled what experts describe as the deadliest drug epidemic in American history. Trump confirmed aboard Air Force One that he raised the fentanyl issue directly with Xi during their summit. However, this marks the fourth time the Chinese leader has made promises on this topic to an American president. Xi previously committed to address fentanyl precursor sales to President Barack Obama in 2016, to Trump himself in 2018, to President Joe Biden in 2023, and now again to Trump in 2025. Each of these pledges was subsequently violated.
Trump imposed an additional 20 percent fentanyl tariff on Chinese goods last year in an effort to pressure Beijing. Sara Carter, the administration’s drug czar, confirmed in March that China has continued selling precursors for the deadly synthetic opioid despite these measures. The pattern suggests that dialogue on fentanyl may simply provide Beijing with additional time without producing concrete results.
Chinese president displays aggressive posture with Thucydides Trap reference
Xi’s behavior during the summit revealed an assertive attitude that contradicts the diplomatic pleasantries exchanged publicly. On Thursday, the Chinese president publicly invoked the Thucydides Trap, a concept referring to the dangerous tensions that arise when a declining hegemon challenges a rising power. The reference represented a striking insult to both Trump and America itself.
Charles Burton of the Sinopsis think tank analyzed Xi’s comments about overcoming the Thucydides Trap and creating a new paradigm for major-country relations. Burton explained that Xi’s language signals an expectation that the West will accept the inevitability of being overtaken by China and refrain from challenging Beijing anywhere on earth. The Chinese leader’s use of “new era” terminology on the summit’s first day further underscored this imperial worldview, referring to a period in which the United States has been pushed to the sidelines while China dominates globally.
- Xi told Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023 that change unseen in 100 years is coming and they are driving it together
- China’s foreign ministry announced Putin will visit Beijing starting May 19, immediately following the summit
- Xi views himself as heir to China’s lineage of great emperors, rejecting concepts of fair and reciprocal relations
- Chinese officials have promoted the tianxia concept of China as the world’s only sovereign state with a Mandate of Heaven
Beijing promotes tianxia ideology that transcends Western international order
Xi has consistently employed tianxia language, declaring in his 2017 New Year’s Message that the Chinese have always held that the world is united and all under heaven are one family. Foreign Minister Wang Yi elaborated on this ideology in Study Times, the influential Central Party School newspaper, writing that Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy has made innovations on and transcended traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years.
Wang’s 300-year time reference points to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, two treaties that established the current international order of competing sovereign states. His use of “transcended” hints that Xi envisions a world without sovereign states, essentially a unified world ruled by China. This fundamental incompatibility raises serious questions about whether meaningful cooperation is possible with a China that believes other nations have no legitimate sovereignty.
China’s internal vulnerabilities contrast sharply with Xi’s triumphalist rhetoric
Despite Xi’s Thucydides Trap references and “new era” language suggesting a rising China, the country faces severe internal challenges. The economy is deteriorating with a plunging property market, the Communist Party is experiencing significant purges, and the military remains in disarray. Many Chinese citizens are either angry or have opted out of society entirely. Most fundamentally, China’s demographic collapse threatens to reduce its population by more than half by the end of the century.
Fox Business anchor Charles Payne drew an intriguing historical parallel, suggesting the Trump-Xi summit could become a Reagan-Gorbachev moment. Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev is widely praised in the West as a hero who recognized that the USSR could not be saved. However, in China’s ruling circles, Gorbachev is vilified. Xi asked in a secret December 2012 speech to Guangdong province cadres why the Soviet Union disintegrated and why the Soviet Communist Party collapsed, attributing it to wavering ideals and convictions.
Trump faces greater challenge than Reagan in managing China’s decline
Xi declared in Guangdong that all it took was one quiet word from Gorbachev to dissolve the Soviet Communist Party, lamenting that nobody was a real man and nobody came out to resist. President Ronald Reagan successfully stabilized relations with the Soviet Union through his dialogue with Gorbachev, allowing the USSR to dissolve without catastrophe. However, Xi proves far more determined than the Soviet leader, presenting Trump with a greater challenge in managing a faltering China. The fundamental question remains whether Beijing’s summit commitments represent genuine progress or merely another round of strategic delays while China pursues its imperial ambitions.