Saying China wants more energy doesn't bind China to anything
At a summit in Beijing this week, President Trump and President Xi Jinping exchanged promises of aircraft orders, agricultural purchases, and new institutional frameworks for managing trade — gestures that signal a desire for détente after a year of escalating economic hostility. Yet the history of U.S.-China diplomacy counsels patience over celebration: grand announcements have dissolved before, and the distance between a spoken commitment and a signed contract has swallowed billions of dollars in prior agreements. What was produced in Beijing may be less a deal than a direction — a shared willingness, for now, to turn away from the edge.
- After tariffs reached as high as 125 percent on Chinese goods, both governments arrived in Beijing desperate to show their publics that the economic standoff could be managed.
- Trump declared 'fantastic trade deals,' but Boeing's stock fell nearly 4 percent on Friday — a market verdict that the headline numbers landed smaller than the rhetoric suggested.
- The most celebrated commitments — 200 to 750 Boeing aircraft, billions in soybeans and oil — remain verbal, unconfirmed by official documents, and hauntingly similar to an $84 billion West Virginia energy pledge from 2017 that never materialized.
- New trade and investment boards are being stood up to mediate disputes and potentially reduce tariffs on $30 billion in goods, though that figure represents less than a tenth of total bilateral trade.
- Experts say the coming months are the real test: either these promises harden into contracts, or they quietly dissolve as the next crisis reshapes the relationship.
President Trump returned from Beijing this week declaring victory, pointing to Chinese commitments to purchase at least 200 Boeing aircraft — potentially rising to 750 — along with billions in agricultural and energy purchases. The White House also announced two new institutional bodies, a Board of Trade and a Board of Investment, designed to manage disputes and prevent the kind of tariff escalation that had pushed duties on Chinese goods as high as 125 percent.
But trade experts were measured in their enthusiasm. Wendy Cutler, a veteran U.S. trade negotiator, said she had expected something more concrete and that Trump's team had relatively little to show so far. David Meale of the Eurasia Group noted that neither side had released clear details — the fine print, he suggested, still needed to be written.
Boeing called the summit a success, saying it had achieved its goal of reopening the Chinese market to orders. Yet its stock fell 3.8 percent on Friday, suggesting investors found the announcement underwhelming. Energy and agricultural commitments were even less defined. Columbia University's Erica Downs observed that no official statement confirmed how much oil China intended to buy or on what timeline — leaving the pledge meaningful to neither market nor treaty.
The deeper concern is historical. In 2017, a Chinese state firm pledged nearly $84 billion for energy projects in West Virginia. As relations soured, those plans vanished entirely. Current experts note that this week's agreements are verbal, not contractual — and that the same fate remains possible.
What may prove more durable than any single deal is the change in atmosphere. Both governments are now describing the relationship as stabilized, and the new trade board could eventually lift tariffs on roughly $30 billion in goods. The real verdict, however, will arrive in the months ahead, when promises either become binding agreements or quietly recede into the noise of the next confrontation.
President Trump returned from Beijing this week claiming victory. The summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he said, had produced "fantastic trade deals" and amounted to an "incredible visit." The centerpiece: China would buy at least 200 aircraft from Boeing, with the number potentially climbing to 750. There would be billions in agricultural purchases—soybeans, corn, beef—and commitments to buy more American oil. The White House announced new institutional machinery to manage the relationship: a Board of Trade and Board of Investment, designed to prevent the kind of escalation that led to tariffs as high as 125 percent on Chinese goods last year.
But the specifics, trade experts say, remain frustratingly thin. Wendy Cutler, who spent years negotiating trade policy for the U.S. government, told CBS News she had expected something more concrete. "I was expecting that China would announce mega purchases of U.S. agriculture, energy and airplanes," she said. "So far, it doesn't seem like Trump and his team have a lot to show for the visit." David Meale, who tracks China for the political risk firm Eurasia Group, offered a more measured reading: both sides are claiming progress, but the details remain unfinished. "Neither side has come out with a clear statement of details," he said. "They just need to cross the Ts and dot the Is on a few things."
Boeing appears to be the clearest winner. The company told CBS News it had achieved its "major goal of reopening the China market to orders for Boeing aircraft." The initial commitment for 200 planes is real enough—but it landed smaller than some analysts had anticipated. Boeing's stock fell 3.8 percent on Friday, a market signal that investors found the announcement underwhelming. The energy and agricultural commitments remain even more nebulous. Erica Downs, an energy policy expert at Columbia University, noted that no official statement has confirmed how much oil China actually intends to buy or at what rate. "Saying that China wants to buy more energy from the U.S. will please Trump," she said, "but it doesn't bind China to anything."
This is the crux of the problem. The agreements announced this week are verbal commitments—promises made in conversation, not locked into contracts or formal documents. History offers a cautionary tale. In 2017, Trump's previous trip to China produced an agreement in which the state-owned China Energy Investment Corporation pledged nearly $84 billion for shale gas and chemical manufacturing projects in West Virginia. Those plans evaporated as tensions between the countries rose. Cutler and other trade experts note that the current deals could still materialize over the coming weeks and months. "This is not their one and only meeting," Cutler observed, "which could lead to both sides deciding to take their time before they announce anything, rather than rushing."
What may matter more than any single transaction is the shift in tone. After a year of escalating tariffs and tit-for-tat retaliation, both governments are now describing the relationship as stabilized. The new Board of Trade is meant to mediate disputes and potentially lift tariffs on roughly $30 billion in goods—a meaningful gesture, though it represents less than 10 percent of total U.S.-China trade. As of February, China faced an average American tariff rate of about 32 percent, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. exports averaged around 10 percent. The asymmetry remains stark. For now, the real test will come in the months ahead, when the verbal commitments either transform into binding agreements or fade into the background of the next crisis.
Citas Notables
I was expecting that China would announce mega purchases of U.S. agriculture, energy and airplanes. So far, it doesn't seem like Trump and his team have a lot to show for the visit.— Wendy Cutler, former U.S. trade negotiator
Saying that China wants to buy more energy from the U.S. will please Trump, but it doesn't bind China to anything.— Erica Downs, energy policy expert at Columbia University
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So Trump says he got fantastic deals. Why are experts skeptical?
Because almost nothing he announced has been put in writing. The Boeing order is real—200 planes—but the agricultural and energy commitments are just promises made in conversation. No numbers, no timelines, no signatures.
But couldn't those details just be coming later?
They could. And some experts think they will. But there's a precedent that worries people. In 2017, Trump got a commitment for $84 billion in West Virginia investments from a Chinese state company. It never happened. When tensions rose, the deal dissolved.
So this whole summit might just be theater?
Not entirely. The fact that both sides are talking constructively again, after a year of 125 percent tariffs, matters. They've created new boards to manage the relationship. That's real infrastructure.
What about the Boeing deal? That seems concrete.
It does, but investors weren't impressed. The stock fell 3.8 percent. Analysts had expected more planes. Two hundred is good, but 750 is the ceiling—and that's contingent on future negotiations.
What would make you believe these deals are real?
Written agreements. Specific numbers. A statement from China saying they'll buy X barrels of oil per day, or Y tons of soybeans. Right now we're waiting for the details to be filled in.
And if they never are?
Then this was a reset—a way to lower the temperature—but not a breakthrough. The tariffs stay high. The relationship stabilizes, but the fundamental imbalance in trade remains.