What Trump and Xi chose NOT to say on trade will worry global markets
Donald Trump leaves Beijing declaring success after two days of high-level talks with Xi Jinping, but the absence of concrete detail from the summit between the leaders of the world’s two largest economies is where investors should focus their attention, according to Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group.
“The headlines sound reassuring, but the substance underneath them remains remarkably thin.
“Markets heard promises of stronger ties, major purchases and stabilised relations. What they did NOT hear was, perhaps, far more important.”
Trump claimed China would buy 200 Boeing aircraft, alongside significant increases in purchases of US agricultural goods and energy exports. Yet no formal agreement has been released publicly by Beijing, no timetable has emerged, and no financial framework has been disclosed.
“Global investors are being asked to price optimism without documentation,” notes the deVere CEO.
“Aviation orders, agricultural commitments, and trade pledges only matter if there’s enforceable detail attached to them. Right now, there’s very little of that.”
US-China trade exceeded $575 billion last year despite years of tariffs, export controls and strategic hostility.
China remains central to global manufacturing supply chains, while the US remains one of China’s most important export destinations. Financial markets have been desperate for signs that tensions between Washington and Beijing are easing in a meaningful way.
Nigel Green argues the summit delivered optics rather than resolution.
“Unfortunately, there was no serious public breakthrough on tariffs, semiconductors, export controls, rare earth minerals or industrial subsidies,” he says.
“Those are the core disputes shaping the economic relationship. None of them disappeared because the language between the two leaders softened.”
Rare earths remain among the most strategically sensitive issues.
China controls roughly 70% of global rare earth production and close to 90% of processing capacity. Those materials are essential for semiconductors, EVs, military systems, aerospace manufacturing and advanced tech infrastructure.
Yet despite months of pressure from US industry groups and mounting concern over supply-chain vulnerabilities, the summit produced no detailed framework around future access or export guarantees.
“Rare earths sit at the centre of the global industrial race,” explains Nigel Green. “Washington wanted stability. Markets wanted visibility. Neither emerged from Beijing.”
Semiconductors represent another major silence.
The US continues restrictions on advanced AI chip exports to China, while Beijing accelerates efforts to build domestic alternatives and reduce reliance on American tech.
The deVere chief executive says the omission carries enormous implications for investors globally.
“AI has become one of the most powerful investment themes in the world economy,” he says.
“But the infrastructure behind AI is increasingly shaped by geopolitical confrontation. The summit offered no indication that either side is prepared to retreat.”
Taiwan also remained unresolved beneath the diplomatic theatre.
Xi Jinping reportedly reiterated Beijing’s hardline position during private discussions, while Trump avoided major public escalation. Markets interpreted the restraint positively, but Nigel Green warns the underlying tensions remain acute.
“Taiwan is one of the single biggest geopolitical risk factors facing global markets. Any deterioration would instantly hit semiconductors, shipping routes, defence spending, commodity prices and global equities.”
The summit also failed to produce meaningful clarity around the future of tariffs imposed during the original US-China trade war.
Average US tariffs on many Chinese goods remain significantly above pre-2018 levels, while Beijing has maintained retaliatory measures across multiple sectors. Global manufacturers have spent years restructuring supply chains around the uncertainty.
Nigel Green says businesses were hoping for a clearer direction.
“Corporate leaders wanted evidence of a longer-term framework for economic engagement,” he says.
“Instead, they received broad political language designed to calm sentiment without addressing the structural fractures underneath.”
He also points to the contradictions inside the economic announcements themselves.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer spoke about large future agricultural purchases from China, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested some key commodity arrangements had already effectively been settled under earlier agreements.
“Mixed messaging creates more uncertainty, not less,” concludes Nigel Green.
“Washington and Beijing may have lowered the temperature publicly, but the unresolved economic conflict beneath the surface remains very much alive.”