Breaking Down the Xi-Trump Phone Call

“Yuyuantan Tian,” a Chinese official media outlet, published an in-depth analysis of yesterday’s phone call between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. The full text is as follows:

On the evening of June 5, Chinese President Xi Jinping held a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump's request. The last such call took place on January 17.

The press release issued by the Chinese side totaled 547 characters—concise but rich in content, worthy of close reading.

How will talks proceed in the next stage?

The U.S., which had long anticipated this call, may want to carefully consider the tone and signals it conveys.

China Central Television (CCTV) released the breaking news:

“On the evening of June 5, President Xi Jinping spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump at the latter’s request.”

The key word in the first sentence of the press release is “at the latter’s request.”

Trump’s request for this call dates back as far as February, about four months ago. In the past week, the urgency on the U.S. side grew even more apparent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent mentioned last week that the U.S. was looking forward to direct communication between the two presidents. Officials from the White House National Economic Council and the Press Secretary also stated that the U.S. hoped to speak with President Xi.

Why did China agree to the call at this particular time?
According to Diao Daming, Deputy Director of the American Studies Center at Renmin University of China:

“This call follows up on the one held on January 17. It serves to summarize the trajectory of the past six months and chart the course ahead. From a bilateral perspective, this reflects a steady and strategic use of head-of-state diplomacy to set the tone. That the call came within a month of the Geneva talks signals a renewed push for mechanisms and dialogue to resolve outstanding issues.”

President Xi stated:

“To correct the course of the giant vessel that is China-U.S. relations, we must take firm hold of the rudder and maintain our direction—especially in eliminating disturbances and sabotage.”

This idea of “correcting the course” recalls Xi’s January 17 remarks on the U.S.-China relationship:

“Both the U.S. and China are great nations, pursuing their respective dreams and seeking better lives for their peoples. The two countries share broad common interests and vast space for cooperation. They can be partners and friends, mutually enabling each other, prospering together, benefiting not only themselves but the world at large.”

The notion of “mutual enablement” includes: China and the U.S. being each other’s major goods trade partners; the rapid growth of services trade; and both being key sources and recipients of two-way investment.

But various disruptions are jeopardizing this shared prosperity.
A summary of at least eight U.S. trade-related actions viewed by China as disruptive:

1. Attempts to revoke China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status;

2. Overuse of national security as a justification;

3. Abusive application of export controls;

4. Imposition of Section 301 tariffs;

5. Conducting Section 232 investigations;

6. Misuse of trade remedy mechanisms;

7. Trade restrictions under the pretext of fentanyl;

8. New “reciprocal tariffs.”

Professor Cui Fan of the University of International Business and Economics commented:

“These actions fall into two categories: flawed policies (such as tariffs and non-tariff measures) and flawed perceptions—particularly the view that China is a ‘malicious competitor,’ which underpins tech restrictions and export controls.”

Hence, to eliminate disruptions, the U.S. must correct its strategic perception of China. The two sides are “partners, not adversaries.”

Based on a U.S. proposal, the two countries’ trade leads held talks in Geneva, marking an important step toward resolving economic and trade issues through dialogue. The move was widely welcomed and proved that dialogue and cooperation are the only right paths forward.

This also reaffirms that the Geneva meeting was initiated at the U.S. side’s request, with two implied messages:

1. The trade frictions stem from U.S. actions;

2. Since the U.S. requested the talks, it must now show genuine willingness to cooperate, not treat the talks as tactical gamesmanship.

Professor Cui added that before the current trade war, the U.S. believed it had a stronger hand. However, since May, U.S. port traffic has dropped sharply, and retailers have warned of supply shortages and price hikes. The economic pressure on the U.S. is growing.

On the day the U.S.-China Geneva Joint Statement was released, the S&P 500 rose over 3%, and the Nasdaq gained more than 4%. U.S. procurement orders surged, and trans-Pacific shipping routes became severely congested.

On the policy front, Trump’s tariff agenda is facing significant domestic opposition. Courts have blocked implementation, and while the administration is appealing, enforcement remains uncertain.

All of this highlights that tariffs are deeply unpopular in the U.S., reinforcing that cooperation is the only viable option.

The international community broadly hopes to see a stable U.S.-China relationship, contributing to global growth. The U.S. must respect this expectation.

The two sides agreed to make full use of their established trade consultation mechanisms, act with equality and mutual respect, and aim for win-win outcomes. China, according to the release, has both sincerity and principles.

• Sincerity: Willingness to address U.S. concerns where feasible, especially through technical discussions.

• Principles: China still reserves countermeasures against unilateral U.S. tariffs, and opposes coercive or threatening negotiation tactics.

China emphasized that “agreements must be honored.” After the Geneva talks, China took the agreement seriously and suspended retaliatory tariffs. In contrast, the U.S. introduced a series of new discriminatory restrictions, including:

• AI chip export controls;

• Bans on EDA software sales to China;

• Revocation of visas for Chinese students.

China voiced its dissatisfaction, warning: continued U.S. provocations will be met with firm responses.

The release also addresses U.S. accusations over rare earth export controls, which China firmly rejects:

“Rare earths are dual-use materials. Export controls are common international practice. China's measures are non-discriminatory and not aimed at any specific country.”

This suggests the U.S. itself is “projecting”—it has long weaponized technology and export controls.

Therefore, “being pragmatic” means the U.S. should begin rolling back harmful measures, including Section 301 and 232 tariffs, fentanyl-related tariffs, and various non-tariff barriers.

The two sides should deepen communication in key areas:

Diplomacy, trade, military, and law enforcement.

This aligns with recent events: On the same day as the call, China received a high-level Track II U.S. delegation in Beijing.

Prof. Wu Xinbo of Fudan University shared background on delegation members:

• Evan Greenberg: Vice Chair, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations;

• Stephen Orlins: Played a key role in U.S.-China normalization;

• Bo F. Bjergbo: CEO of Continental Grain; helped establish China’s first post-reform foreign JV;

• Ryan Hass: Brookings China Center Director, former U.S. Embassy Beijing official.

This illustrates how personal exchanges and pragmatic cooperation drive understanding between the two countries.

Notably, top executives such as NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, Invesco Chair Marty Flanagan, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon have visited China in recent months.

“No good deed is too small.”
U.S.-China engagement advances through such real-world efforts. The U.S. should be equally committed at all levels.

Xi also stressed:

“The U.S. must handle the Taiwan issue prudently and avoid letting a few ‘Taiwan independence’ elements drag the two countries into conflict.”

Even in a call focused on trade, this mention of Taiwan highlights its critical importance to China.

The phrase “prudently handle Taiwan” is meant as a firm reminder. The current U.S. administration altered key language on the State Department website regarding Taiwan—sending the wrong signal to separatists.

China warns that if the U.S. enables these forces, any conflict will hurt both sides. Taiwan is at the core of China's national interests, and the U.S. must tread carefully.

Trump’s response:

He expressed great respect for President Xi, acknowledged the importance of the U.S.-China relationship, and said the U.S. welcomes a strong Chinese economy. He emphasized cooperation, reaffirmed the One China policy, and expressed willingness to implement the Geneva agreement and welcome Chinese students to the U.S.

One standout phrase:

“The U.S. welcomes China's continued strong economic growth.”

According to Cui Fan, Trump’s statement reflects domestic pressures and a desire to signal that China is not viewed as an enemy.

Thus, the two leaders reaffirmed three areas of consensus:

1. Respect for the One China principle;

2. Emphasis on mutually beneficial cooperation;

3. Support for people-to-people exchanges, including education.

“Going forward, it’s not just about what’s said—it’s about what’s done.”

Xi welcomed Trump to visit China again, and Trump expressed thanks.
The two presidents agreed their teams would follow up on the Geneva consensus and convene a new round of talks soon.

This final paragraph reveals two key messages:

• Trump may visit China again—his last visit was in November 2017;

• The two sides plan to restart in-person trade negotiations soon.

For the U.S., the urgency is clear:
With weakening employment, softening consumption, and rising inflation, the economy faces growing uncertainty. The tariff-driven impasse has chilled investment and trade—dragging down second-half forecasts.

Finally, a noteworthy detail:
At Geneva, the U.S. sent Treasury and USTR leads. Trump has now made clear that the Commerce Secretary should join future talks, signaling that tech export controls and broader strategic issues will also be on the table.

As scholar Zhao Hai observed:

“Adding Commerce means expanding U.S.-China talks into the tech and export control realm. The next phase of dialogue will be deeper and broader.”