Don’t Call It a Reset: Xi, Trump, and the Limits of Stabilization

Public language from Beijing may point to tactical calm, but company exposure will be decided by tariff authorities, export-control deadlines, rare-earth licensing, sanctions enforcement, and maritime pressure points.

The scheduled May 14–15 meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping in Beijing should be viewed as a constraint test. Both governments have more tools than during the last bilateral stabilization effort but less room to use them without incurring costs. For companies, post-summit implementation will matter only if it alters tariff exposure, export-control diligence, licensing access, sanctions risk, shipping routes, energy costs, or dependence on China-linked suppliers.

Washington has legal, regulatory, and maritime pressure points available, but contested tariff authorities, higher fuel prices, election-year pressure, and the Iran conflict limit its tolerance for escalation.

Beijing still holds leverage through rare-earth and permanent-magnet supply chains, critical-minerals processing capacity, industrial scale, and administrative controls. However, weaker domestic demand, property-sector drag, financial pressure, energy exposure, and senior-level discipline campaigns constrain how freely it can apply that leverage.

Prior BRG alerts framed the late-2025 rare-earth and tariff cycle as coercive signaling rather than all-out rupture, and that framing still holds. China’s rare-earth controls stopped short of an embargo; the practical risk was whether licensing, end-use review, and customs implementation would create commercial blockage. The November 2025 truce shifted the issue from political signals to administrative throughput and enforcement. The same test applies now: legal instruments, licensing decisions, customs treatment, tariff notices, and enforcement behavior will matter more than summit language.

The operating environment is more challenging than during the last stabilization cycle. The Beijing summit sits on top of the US Supreme Court’s rejection of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as authority for challenged tariff measures, commencement of new US Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 investigations, the scheduled return of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Affiliates Rule in November 2026, China’s new use of anti-sanctions tools against US Iran-related sanctions, Persian Gulf maritime disruption, Panama Canal friction, and renewed attention to the Strait of Malacca. The likely outcome is tactical stabilization, not structural resolution.

What changed for companies

US tariff policy is more legally constrained but still carries strategic force. In February 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariff measures. The Trump administration has shifted toward other trade authorities, including Section 122, Section 301, and Section 232 investigations.[1] Supply Chain Dive’s tariff tracker reflects a live mix of tariffs in force, active trade investigations, framework negotiations, and tariff threats as of early May. Companies should not treat tariff risk as a single China-specific duty rate or assume that one court decision resolves the issue. Exposure must be tracked by legal authority, product, country, effective date, exclusion status, refund eligibility, and pending investigation.

Export controls operate on a separate timeline. BIS suspended the Affiliates Rule for one year from November 10, 2025, through November 9, 2026. Unless BIS extends, narrows, or replaces the rule, it will return to the Export Administration Regulations on November 10, 2026. Any summit language on export-control stability should be tested against that date. If the rule returns, companies dealing with listed or restricted parties will need deeper ownership-and-control diligence across subsidiaries and affiliates.

China remains structurally powerful in specific value chains. China retains leverage in rare-earth processing, permanent magnets, batteries, solar, electric vehicles (EVs), clean-technology components, and industrial manufacturing. Beijing’s challenge is usable leverage: how much pressure it can apply without deepening external resistance or worsening domestic strain. Manufacturing and exports remain strong enough to preserve leverage, while property, construction, consumption, youth unemployment, financial-sector pressure, and weak household confidence limit Beijing’s capacity to absorb external shocks. The better assessment is constrained resilience.

That pattern matters across sectors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reports that China’s solar sector is under pressure from price wars, overcapacity, consolidation, and margin compression, even as Chinese producers dominate key segments of the global solar supply chain. Domestic stress has not removed leverage; in some sectors, it can push Chinese firms toward more aggressive export behavior. The same dynamic applies to EVs, batteries, magnets, clean-tech components, and other industries where global competitors face both Chinese scale and overcapacity.

Where the summit could move business risk

Trade and tariffs are the most immediate business channel. China will press against US replacement tariff mechanisms, Section 301 investigations, and technology restrictions. The US will press China on industrial overcapacity, market access, forced labor, fentanyl-related enforcement, and implementation of earlier trade commitments. Trade discussion alone will not change exposure. Instruments, deadlines, investigations, exclusion processes, and refund pathways will.

Semiconductors remain a difficult issue. Washington may provide limited licensing clarity for specific end users or allied data center arrangements, but broad relaxation is unlikely while artificial intelligence, advanced computing, military end use, and data center geography remain national security issues. Beijing will seek fewer restrictions on chip sales and manufacturing equipment while continuing domestic substitution. Boards should assume that any relief will be narrow, conditional, and end-user specific unless post-summit instruments show otherwise.

Rare-earth dependence will remain a near-term exposure. The United States has made incremental progress: USA Rare Earth agreed to acquire Brazil’s Serra Verde Group in a $2.8 billion transaction, and the US Geological Survey (USGS) identified approximately 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide in Appalachian pegmatites. These developments matter strategically but do not eliminate near-term reliance on Chinese separation, processing, and magnet capacity. Mining, permitting, refining, separation, and magnet production remain gating issues.

Iran now links energy, sanctions, maritime security, and the US–China legal conflict. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged China to use its influence over Iran, citing China’s large purchases of Iranian energy and calling for Beijing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. China’s anti-sanctions action against US blacklisting of refiners signals that Beijing does not accept US extraterritorial authority over Chinese purchases of Iranian oil. For companies, the immediate exposure is a conflict of law: compliance with US sanctions may create exposure under Chinese law, while compliance with Chinese blocking measures may create US sanctions risk.

Taiwan will limit how far stabilization can go. Reuters reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Taiwan is the “biggest risk” in US–China relations. Summit language may be carefully managed, but the relevant business indicators will be military activity, air and maritime pressure, Taiwan-related diplomatic coercion, and any resulting changes in insurance, routing, contingency planning, or counterparty risk.

Maritime and energy exposure

Maritime geography is becoming part of US–China competition. Panama has emerged as a live pressure point after its Supreme Court annulled the legal framework for CK Hutchison-linked port concessions.[2] US-aligned statements have emphasized Panama’s sovereignty and criticized Chinese pressure, while Panama’s president has described the port issue as caught in a US–China dispute. The canal’s operational relevance has increased as Middle East war risk pushes more shipping traffic toward alternative routes.

Southeast Asian access is a separate issue. The US and Indonesia announced a major defense cooperation framework, while Reuters reported that proposed US military overflight access remains under Indonesian review rather than finalized. The Strait of Malacca remains central to China’s energy and trade exposure. Washington is paying more attention to Malacca and other maritime corridors China relies on, including Panama, Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and Suez, as well as Pacific port infrastructure.

Chokepoint pressure extends beyond routing. It affects insurance, freight pricing, delivery windows, sanctions screening, port selection, vessel availability, and contingency planning. Panama port litigation, Malacca access discussions, South China Sea activity, Pacific port investment, Bab el-Mandeb disruption, and Suez routing should be treated as operational indicators, not background logistics.

Energy constrains Washington domestically and exposes Beijing externally. The Iran conflict, Strait of Hormuz disruption, insurance friction, and higher crude prices feed into diesel, jet fuel, freight, fertilizer, and distribution costs. Diesel matters because trucking, rail, agriculture, construction, and retail distribution transmit price pressure quickly. In a midterm year, that limits Washington’s tolerance for a prolonged energy shock. China has buffers in the form of strategic reserves, diversified suppliers, domestic alternatives, and EV adoption, but more than one-third of the country’s crude supply transits the Strait of Hormuz each year. Higher oil and input costs hit refiners, petrochemicals, logistics providers, and manufacturers that already face margin pressure.

What to monitor after the summit

Legal and regulatory instruments. Summit language invoking “stability,” “dialogue,” or “cooperation” will not change company exposure on its own. The relevant markers are Federal Register notices, BIS guidance, USTR process changes, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) or General Administration of Customs (GACC) circulars, customs instructions, tariff exclusions, license templates, and bankable authorization language.

Tariffs, export controls, and rare-earth licensing. Companies should distinguish between tariffs currently in force, investigations likely to result in new duties, trade negotiations that may alter rates or exclusions, and tariff threats not yet implemented. The Affiliates Rule clock remains the export-control marker: if the November 10 return date holds, companies should continue preparing for deeper ownership and control diligence. Rare-earth licensing should be assessed by approval timelines, end-use documentation requirements, denial rates, downstream customer disclosure obligations, and whether exporters can secure licenses at a commercially usable pace.

Sanctions, Iran, and administrative retaliation. China’s May 2026 action against US sanctions on Chinese refiners may not remain isolated. Comparable tools could emerge in data, technology, export controls, antitrust, cybersecurity, or customs contexts. If China helps pressure Iran or supports a practical maritime stabilization arrangement, tanker behavior, insurance pricing, routing decisions, and sanctions enforcement posture should shift. If China instead rejects US pressure while increasing purchases through sanctioned or gray-market channels, banks, insurers, traders, and shippers should expect heightened enforcement risk.

Europe and third-country alignment. China is closely watching whether Europe remains a buffer in US–China competition or becomes an amplifier of US pressure through export controls, investment screening, data rules, and clean-energy trade measures. Companies should monitor whether US–China risk remains bilateral or moves through allied controls, third-country banking decisions, customs treatment, procurement rules, and clean-energy trade measures.

Observable data. Vessel flows, customs data, port activity, Automatic Identification System (AIS) anomalies, satellite indicators, facility operations, trade flows, licensing throughput, and corporate registry changes may provide companies with earlier warning than official statements.

What would change our call

The Beijing summit is likely to produce tactical stabilization rather than a structural reset. Our call would change if post-summit implementation moved in any of the following directions:

1. BIS publishes a legal instrument delaying, narrowing, or replacing the Affiliates Rule before the November 2026 reactivation date. That would move export-control stability from rhetoric to implementation and likely generate trade-retaliation measures from Beiling.
2. MOFCOM or GACC issues clear rare-earth licensing guidance that shortens timelines, reduces documentation burdens, and results in observable approval throughput.
3. USTR suspends or materially narrows Section 301 structural overcapacity investigations as part of a negotiated package. This would affect Washington’s post-IEEPA replacement pathway.
4. Leaders announce a verifiable Iran or Hormuz arrangement that changes tanker behavior, insurance pricing, routing decisions, or sanctions-enforcement posture.
5. China narrows or suspends its anti-sanctions injunction against compliance with US measures on Iranian oil. Expansion of the injunction model to other sectors would move our call in the opposite direction.
6. Immediately post-summit, either side escalates through new semiconductor restrictions, rare-earth licensing freezes, punitive tariff action, Taiwan-related military signaling, vessel detentions, or administrative action against a major firm. That would indicate the summit failed to establish a meaningful floor.

Guidance for companies

Companies should treat the summit as a monitoring trigger rather than a basis for irreversible supply chain decisions. Summit language should be tested against instruments, approvals, routing behavior, tariff actions, and enforcement posture.

Trade and procurement teams should update tariff exposure models by authority: IEEPA-affected measures, Section 122 temporary tariffs, Section 301 and Section 232 exposure, and product-specific trade remedies. The legal basis matters for refunds, pricing, contract reopeners, and landed-cost assumptions.

Export-control teams should preserve ownership and control diligence for sensitive counterparties during Affiliates Rule suspension. The scheduled return date remains a planning deadline unless BIS formally changes it.

Legal and compliance teams should review conflict-of-law exposure where US sanctions, Chinese anti-sanctions measures, and third-country banking or insurance rules intersect. Iran-linked oil, petrochemicals, shipping, insurance, and trade finance remain the immediate test cases.

Sourcing teams should continue diversification across rare earths, magnets, lithium, batteries, solar inputs, EV components, semiconductors, and critical industrial inputs but should not assume US or allied projects solve near-term exposure. Serra Verde and Appalachian lithium matter strategically. They do not replace current dependence on Chinese processing, separation, and downstream industrial capacity.

Logistics, treasury, and risk teams should treat maritime chokepoints as cost and continuity variables. Freight rates, insurance premiums, port availability, vessel routing, sanctions screening, and delivery windows should be monitored together, particularly where routes intersect Hormuz, Malacca, Panama, Bab el-Mandeb, Suez, or South China Sea exposure.

Boards and executive teams should require exposure mapping by product, component, supplier, facility, customer, route, bank, insurer, and license dependency. Summit language will not substitute for traceability.

 

References

China Power Team, “How Do Financial Risks Threaten China’s Economic Security?,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (published March 26, 2025; updated March 28, 2025). https://chinapower.csis.org/china-financial-security/

China Power Team, “Measuring China’s Manufacturing Might,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (published December 17, 2024; updated November 25, 2025). https://chinapower.csis.org/tracker/china-manufacturing/

China Power Team, “Unpacking China’s GDP,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (published December 20, 2022; updated March 16, 2026). https://chinapower.csis.org/tracker/china-gdp/

China Power Team, “Weathering ‘High Winds and Stormy Waves’: China’s Search for Economic Security,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (n.d.). https://features.csis.org/chinapower/economic-security-series/

Davidson, Michael, and Sandy Qian, “China’s Solar Industry Is in Upheaval—The Effects Will Be Global,” Center for Strategic & International Studies (March 12, 2026). https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-solar-industry-upheaval-effects-will-be-global

Farquharson, James, Thomas des Garets Geddes, and Jacob Mardell, “Triangles and Chokepoints,” Sinification (May 4, 2026). https://www.sinification.org/p/triangles-and-chokepoints-digest

Harding, Emily, “How Open-Source, Real-Time Data Can Defeat China at the Edge of Its Influence,” Center for Strategic & International Studies (April 29, 2026). https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-open-source-real-time-data-can-defeat-china-edge-its-influence

Kam, Stefanie, “China’s 2 Sessions: Slow Growth Collides With Tech Supremacy,” The Diplomat (March 18, 2025). https://thediplomat.com/2025/03/chinas-2-sessions-slow-growth-collides-with-tech-supremacy/

Klemencic, Steven, and Robert Chamberlain, “Don’t Panic—Yet: China’s Rare Earth Gambit Is Political Chess, Not All‑Out War,” BRG (October 15, 2025). https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/dont-panic-yet-chinas-rare-earth-gambit-is-political-chess-not-all%E2%80%91out-war/

Klemencic, Steven, and Robert Chamberlain, “Don’t Celebrate—Yet: From Signals to Rule in the US, Enforcement Still Decides the Truce,” BRG (November 13, 2025). https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/dont-celebrate-yet-from-signals-to-rule-in-the-us-enforcement-still-decides-the-truce/

Klemencic, Steven, and Robert Chamberlain, “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once: A Tense Start to 2026,” BRG (January 14, 2026). https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/everything-everywhere-all-at-once-a-tense-start-to-2026/

Lawder, David, and Joe Cash, “China, US economic chiefs raise complaints in ‘candid’ call ahead of Trump-Xi summit,” Reuters (April 30, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-us-trade-chiefs-had-candid-call-weeks-ahead-expected-trump-xi-summit-2026-04-30/

Lawder, David, and Susan Heavey, “Bessent urges China to step up diplomacy on Iran ahead of Trump-Xi summit,” Reuters (May 4, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bessent-urges-china-step-up-diplomacy-iran-ahead-trump-xi-summit-2026-05-04/

Lin, Bonny, Brian Hart, Leon Li, Truly Tinsley, and Leon Li, “Surveying the Experts: The State of U.S.-China Relations Entering 2026,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (January 13, 2026). https://chinapower.csis.org/survey-experts-us-china-relations-2026/

Lin, Bonny, Brian Hart, Leon Li, Truly Tinsley, Linda Yang, Feifei Hung, and Tao-Hung Chang, “The Purges Within China’s Military Are Even Deeper Than You Think,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (February 24, 2026). https://chinapower.csis.org/china-pla-military-purges/

Lin, Bonny, Brian Hart, Leon Li, Truly Tinsley, and Linda Yang, “How Is the Iran War Impacting China’s Economy?,” Center for Strategic & International Studies China Power Project (April 30, 2026). https://chinapower.csis.org/china-economic-impacts-iran-war/

Moreno, Elida, “Panama president says port caught in US-China dispute,” Reuters (April 30, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/china/panama-president-says-port-caught-in-us-china-dispute-2026-04-30/

Neuffer, Phil, and Edwin Lopez, “Trump’s tariffs: Tracking the status of US trade actions,” Supply Chain Dive (published March 28, 2025; updated May 4, 2026). https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/trump-tariffs-status-canada-mexico-china-eu/743577/

Office of the United States Trade Representative, “USTR Initiates Section 301 Investigations Relating to Structural Excess Capacity and Production in Manufacturing Sectors” (March 11, 2026). https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/march/ustr-initiates-section-301-investigations-relating-structural-excess-capacity-and-production

Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Section 301 – Structural Excess Capacity and Production in Manufacturing Sectors” (n.d.). https://ustr.gov/trade-topics/enforcement/section-301-investigations/section-301-structural-excess-capacity-and-production-manufacturing-sectors

Onstad, Eric, and Ernest Scheyder, “USA Rare Earth buys Brazil’s Serra Verde for $2.8 billion, extending takeover spree,” Reuters (April 20, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/usa-rare-earth-acquire-brazils-serra-verde-28-bln-2026-04-20/

Reuters, “Indonesia says has no policy granting unrestricted airspace access to foreign party” (April 15, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indonesia-says-has-no-policy-granting-unrestricted-airspace-access-foreign-party-2026-04-15/

Reuters, “Hormuz crisis throws spotlight on world’s largest ‘chokepoint,’ the Malacca Strait” (April 23, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hormuz-crisis-throws-spotlight-worlds-largest-chokepoint-malacca-strait-2026-04-23/

Reuters, “US, allies back Panama’s sovereignty in joint statement” (April 28, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-allies-release-joint-statement-supporting-panamas-sovereignty-2026-04-28/

Reuters, “Panama Canal sees spike in vessel traffic due to war in Middle East” (April 28, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/panama-canal-sees-spike-vessel-traffic-due-war-middle-east-2026-04-28/

Reuters, “China’s factory activity extends expansion, PMI shows, as Iran war risks mount” (April 29, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinas-factory-activity-remains-expansion-april-pmi-shows-2026-04-30/

Reuters, “China factory activity expands at quickest pace since late 2020, private PMI shows” (April 29, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-factory-activity-expands-quickest-pace-since-late-2020-private-pmi-shows-2026-04-30/

Reuters, “China’s Commerce Ministry blocks US sanctions against five refineries” (May 2, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-commerce-ministry-blocks-us-sanctions-against-five-refineries-2026-05-02/

Reuters, “Trump calls Xi meeting important trip, says US leads in AI” (May 4, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-calls-xi-meeting-important-trip-says-us-leads-ai-2026-05-04/

Reuters, “China invokes anti-sanctions law to counter US blacklisting of refiners” (May 4, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-invokes-anti-sanctions-law-counter-us-blacklisting-refiners-2026-05-04/

Supreme Court of the United States, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287 (February 20, 2026). www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

US Bureau of Industry and Security, “One Year Suspension of Expansion of End-User Controls for Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities,” Federal Register (November 12, 2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/12/2025-19846/one-year-suspension-of-expansion-of-end-user-controls-for-affiliates-of-certain-listed-entities

US Geological Survey, “Lithium in Eastern States Could Replace Imports for a Century or More” (April 28, 2026). https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/lithium-eastern-states-could-replace-imports-a-century-or-more

USA Rare Earth, “USA Rare Earth Announces Definitive Agreement to Acquire Serra Verde Group for ~$2.8 Billion, Creating the Global Rare Earth Leader” (April 20, 2026). https://investors.usare.com/news-releases/news-release-details/usa-rare-earth-announces-definitive-agreement-acquire-serra

---

[1] Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the president to impose, for up to 150 days, temporary import surcharges or quotas to address large and serious US balance-of-payments deficits. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the USTR to investigate and respond to foreign acts, policies, or practices that are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and burden or restrict US commerce, including through tariffs or other trade actions. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the Department of Commerce to investigate whether imports threaten to impair US national security and permits the president to adjust imports, including through tariffs or quotas, if such a threat is found.

[2] CK Hutchison refers to CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, a Hong Kong–headquartered multinational conglomerate whose businesses include ports and related services, retail, infrastructure, and telecommunications. Its ports business operates primarily through Hutchison Port Holdings/Hutchison Ports. “CK Hutchison-linked port concessions” refers to port operating rights, leases, licenses, concession agreements, or terminal operating arrangements held directly or indirectly by CK Hutchison, Hutchison Ports, or their subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures. The term is broader than direct ownership and may include local operating companies, minority or majority equity interests, long-term government-granted concessions, or operational-control arrangements over state-owned port assets.