As U.S.-China trade tensions escalate once again, President Donald Trump is pushing for a direct phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping in hopes of reviving stalled negotiations. Although the White House has indicated a call is “likely” to occur this week, analysts remain skeptical that it will produce the breakthrough Trump envisions.
“The president is obsessed with having a call with Xi,” said one person familiar with the discussions, believing Trump is convinced he can personally resolve complex disputes between the two global economic powers through a direct exchange with Xi.
That belief, however, downplays the complexity of the trade impasse and underscores the challenge the U.S. faces as it tries to overhaul a $600 billion bilateral trade relationship without incurring lasting domestic or diplomatic fallout. It also raises renewed concerns over Trump’s broader objectives in an increasingly risky standoff with Beijing.
The source, who requested anonymity to speak openly, added that the administration is facing “a lot of pressure” following China’s restriction of exports on key minerals critical to sectors ranging from automotive and electronics to national defense. “I don’t think Xi is too interested in exporting any more rare earths or magnets to the United States, he’s made his position clear,” the person said. Still, they speculated there’s a “good likelihood” Xi will agree to a conversation. “The president has some leverage, and the question is when he’s ready to impose maximum pressure on the Chinese government.”
Another former Trump official, also speaking anonymously, echoed that view: “Trump feels like a call between principles is a way to cut through a lot of this noise, and get right to the heart of the matter.”
Yet, despite White House assurances, some outside observers doubt that Beijing will green-light such a high-level engagement. Since the start of Trump’s second term, officials have frequently promised a call between the two leaders, and Trump himself hinted in April that a conversation had already taken place—without offering confirmation.
“Beijing has a sharp nose for weakness, and for all his bravado, Trump is signaling eagerness — even desperation — to cut a direct deal with Xi,” said Daniel Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs under the Obama administration. “That only stiffens Beijing’s resolve.”
Concerns in Beijing have also been heightened by Trump’s public diplomacy style, particularly his attention-grabbing Oval Office meetings with world leaders like Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa.
“The PRC sees President Trump as unpredictable, which poses risks reputationally for President Xi,” said Rush Doshi, former deputy senior director for China and Taiwan on the National Security Council under President Biden. “It’s not usual practice for PRC diplomats to put the leader at risk of a potentially embarrassing or unpredictable encounter.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that a conversation would “likely” occur this week, a sentiment echoed by National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Sunday. However, a White House official, speaking on background, said no call had been officially scheduled. Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said, “I have no information to share on that,” when asked about a possible call during a Tuesday briefing. The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not respond to inquiries, and a statement from China’s Commerce Ministry accused the U.S. of “stirring up new economic and trade frictions,” suggesting Beijing may not be prepared for conciliatory dialogue.
This new round of finger-pointing comes just weeks after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer secured an agreement in Geneva aimed at easing tensions. That deal saw U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods reduced from a 145% floor to 30%, while Beijing agreed to cut its tariffs on American imports to 10% and lift export restrictions on key minerals. Both nations set a 90-day timeline to initiate discussions on a broader trade framework addressing longstanding U.S. concerns over Chinese trade practices.
However, implementation has faltered. The Trump administration accuses China of dragging its feet on restarting critical mineral shipments and fulfilling its side of the agreement.
“When they agreed in Geneva to remove their tariff and their countermeasures, they removed the tariff like we did. But some of the countermeasures, they’ve slowed on,” Greer said on CNBC last Friday.
U.S. automakers have begun sounding alarms over looming shortages of rare earth magnets—vital components in transmissions, sensors, and safety systems—warning they may soon be forced to halt production and close factories.
Beyond trade, the issue of fentanyl also remains unresolved. China has proposed two potential agreements since Trump’s initial tariff imposition, including one in February.
“Everyone agrees that for any additional progress to happen on tariffs, the gateway is fentanyl,” said a business official familiar with negotiations, who also spoke anonymously.
The U.S. has yet to respond to those proposals, which were crafted by Beijing to spur dialogue on how to stem precursor chemical exports used by Mexican cartels to manufacture fentanyl. Deep-rooted skepticism within the Trump administration about China’s willingness to follow through has prevented meaningful movement.
Meanwhile, Chinese officials are frustrated by U.S. moves to curtail technology exports, particularly semiconductors and aircraft, citing national security concerns. Less than a day after the Geneva agreement, the Commerce Department advised U.S. firms against using chips produced by Chinese tech giant Huawei, warning they could violate U.S. export controls—a move that caught Chinese negotiators off guard.
“The Chinese side seems to legitimately believe that there was going to be this sort of 90-day sort of stay of new actions,” said a business official. “And that, you know, there might be some, some small things that happened, but nothing totally earth shattering.”
Tensions have also grown over new U.S. restrictions targeting Chinese students.
“The U.S. unilaterally keeps stirring up new economic and trade frictions, exacerbating the uncertainty and instability of bilateral economic and trade relations, and not only does it not reflect on itself, but also hits the other side with a backhanded accusation that the Chinese side violates the consensus, which is a serious deviation from the facts,” a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry said Monday.
Trump’s hope that a direct call with Xi will resolve these issues challenges how policy decisions are made within China’s ruling Communist Party.
“Trump is a deal maker. Xi Jinping is not a deal maker — he’s a Party guy at the top of an administrative superstructure,” said Harry Broadman, a former assistant U.S. Trade Representative under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “I cannot imagine that Xi would get into specifics — at most they might agree on certain principles but that’s not likely to satisfy Trump.”
There’s also concern that a premature leader-to-leader conversation could harm future negotiations.
“Elevating talks to the leader level might remove the ability to put together the kind of deeper and bigger deal that ultimately requires more consideration and time, so jumping to the leader level can be risky,” said Doshi.
But one former Trump official dismissed the risk, arguing: “From the U.S. perspective, what’s the big downside to the call? You ask for it. If they don’t do it, it’s like, ‘well, you know, we’re trying, they’re not even trying.’ And if they do it, maybe we get some progress.”
