US–China Trade Talks: Muted Talks, Loud Messages
Recent public messaging from Washington and Beijing presents sharply divergent accounts of the status of bilateral trade negotiations.
On April 24, President Donald Trump stated that the United States and China were “actively” discussing trade. Two days earlier, he told TIME magazine, “We're meeting with China [on trade issues]”, and, when asked about contact with Chinese President Xi Jinping, replied simply, “He’s called.” However, Trump provided no specific dates or details, shifting quickly to other topics.
By contrast, Chinese officials have been unequivocal. On the same day as Trump’s “active discussions” comment, Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yaodong stated: “At present, there are no economic and trade negotiations taking place between China and the United States. Any claims about progress in China–US trade negotiations are based on rumours and speculation, without factual basis.” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun echoed this position repeatedly across several daily press conferences in late April, insisting there had been no consultations or negotiations on tariffs.
These seemingly contradictory narratives reflect not so much a disagreement over facts as a divergence in political strategy and rhetorical framing.
Framing the Interaction: Ambiguity Versus Precision
Trump’s statements appear calibrated to signal optimism and momentum. His vagueness leaves room for interpretation, projecting the image of an engaged White House pursuing progress from a position of strength. This ambiguity is not new—it has been a recurring feature of Trump’s trade rhetoric, which often seeks to reassure financial markets or create pressure on negotiating counterparts without committing to specific details.
On the Chinese side, official language is carefully circumscribed. By denying the existence of “economic and trade negotiations” or consultations on tariffs, Beijing is likely referring to the absence of formal, structured talks. This distinction allows for technical accuracy even as lower-level contacts or informal exchanges may be occurring.
Such rhetorical positioning reflects deeper concerns: Beijing seeks to assert narrative control while avoiding any perception of yielding to US pressure—especially the impression of being reactive or submissive in the eyes of its domestic audience.
Tensions in Chinese Messaging
Despite the uncompromising tone, China’s recent actions suggest a more pragmatic posture. Over the past month, Beijing has quietly reduced or waived tariffs on a limited set of US imports, including ethane, semiconductors, and certain pharmaceutical products. While not officially acknowledged as part of a broader negotiation, these measures indicate some degree of flexibility—or at least a recognition of mutual economic interdependence.
Last week, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a video titled Never Kneel! (不跪！), which condemned US tariffs and framed resistance as a matter of principle. It included the line:
“To seek cooperation through struggle is to preserve cooperation; to seek cooperation through compromise is to destroy it…”
The video’s uncompromising tone is one example among many of Beijing’s strident messaging. It illustrates how such rhetoric is used to project strength and resolve, even as China pursues quieter, pragmatic policy adjustments. Together, these elements underscore how Beijing seeks to maintain narrative control while allowing space for tactical flexibility.
This defiant posture also reflects the performative aspects of China’s diplomatic communication—aimed at consolidating domestic support and reinforcing its image as a principled actor resisting hegemonic bullying from the US.