Trump and Xi: Gloves Off in Seoul

Next month, on November 1, U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet in Seoul—a neutral stage for what could be one of the most consequential trade discussions in recent years.

In classic Trump fashion, the President declared that a “deal is near” before even stepping foot in South Korea. This kind of pre-meeting bravado is hardly new; it’s the same playbook Trump used during the 2018–2020 tariff negotiations. By shaping the media narrative early, he sets expectations high—putting public pressure on negotiators to deliver something that can be marketed as a win, regardless of its depth.

The Big Questions

As the two economic powerhouses prepare to sit down, a few key questions dominate the agenda:

• Will the U.S. remove the 100% tariff threat announced just two weeks ago?

• Will there be new U.S. access to China’s rare earth minerals, essential to aerospace, EV, and defense manufacturing?

• Will agriculture exports—a core Trump voter issue—make their way back into China’s purchasing pipeline?

• And perhaps most unpredictable: will the TikTok decision make an appearance as a political bargaining chip?

While few analysts expect a sweeping, final deal, there’s room for symbolic gestures—handshakes, pledges, and statements of “strategic cooperation” that play well on camera. But beneath the optics, what Trump really wants is leverage.

Trump’s Negotiation Arsenal

For nearly a decade, Trump’s economic doctrine has been anchored around tariff-driven leverage and the concept of “fair trade.” His first administration’s China tariffs—infamous but effective—did narrow the U.S. trade deficit with China, albeit briefly. He knows how to hit where it hurts.

Trump has shown a willingness to wield targeted economic pain to force movement, especially in sectors where China’s reach is both direct and indirect. He can easily turn attention toward Europe, where export controls on critical technologies—such as aerospace components, advanced automotive systems, and pharmaceuticals—could have knock-on effects that ripple back to Beijing.

And then there’s the New Significant Affiliate Rule, which expands the reach of U.S. export controls by capturing foreign subsidiaries of sanctioned entities. Combined with Trump’s acceleration of certain industries—like Starlink’s satellite network, which he fast-tracked to outpace China’s own low-orbit internet ambitions—the message is clear: the U.S. can still set the tempo of global innovation.

Trump’s unapologetic defense of Boeing also signals a broader theme: short-term turbulence in exchange for long-term strategic control. While the Chinese economy is too vast to capsize, it can certainly be rocked—and when it rocks, smaller developing nations caught in the wake feel the swell.

China’s Counterweight

China has long mastered the art of strategic patience. Its responses are typically measured, not reactionary, and its long-term play is in institutional endurance—outlasting the political cycles of its rivals.

In previous negotiations, Beijing often conceded on the surface—buying more soybeans or pledging intellectual property enforcement—but then quietly rebalanced through back channels and domestic subsidies. It’s not that China yields; it recalibrates.

This time, though, the stakes are more complex. The country’s currency management, balance of trade, and role as a sponsor of multinationalism all mean it can’t afford to appear weak. The post-pandemic recovery, coupled with the global reshoring trend, has already applied enough strain. Seoul may simply serve as a platform to signal calm—while the real negotiations happen elsewhere, through economic policy, not handshakes.

Trump the Dealmaker

Despite the theatrics, Trump’s core strength remains his instinct for transactional diplomacy. He is not a globalist, but he is a dealmaker—someone who measures success not in ideological wins but in deal terms.

A recent 60 Minutes interview with Jared Kushner, one of Trump’s closest advisers and architects of his previous trade and Middle East agreements, may have quietly tipped the administration’s hand. Kushner remarked that Trump’s negotiating style “isn’t about ideology—it’s about aligning mutual interests.” That framing matters. It signals that the White House’s approach to China may not be rooted in political rivalry, but in extracting practical, measurable outcomes both sides can sell domestically as victories.

Expect discussions around:

• Foreign-Owned Enterprise (FOE) rules in China, potentially forcing transparency on profits repatriated to U.S. entities.

• Expatriation of revenue, ensuring American corporations can actually bring their profits home.

• Escalation and de-escalation mechanisms, allowing each country to throttle tension without conceding face.

Both leaders share a disdain for the World Trade Organization (WTO), which they see as an outdated referee lacking enforcement power. In that shared skepticism lies an opportunity: a bilateral reset that bypasses the WTO altogether and redefines how two economic giants negotiate outside the old multilateral frameworks.

The wildcard, of course, is Taiwan—but not in the overt military sense. Both Trump and Xi are likely to lean away from direct confrontation, instead using economic influence as leverage. The U.S. may dangle expanded market access or currency concessions in exchange for China scaling back its military posture in Southeast Asia, effectively trading short-term economic incentives for long-term regional stability.

Final Takeaways

The Seoul meeting is not about resolution—it’s about positioning. Trump wants to prove that America can still dictate the pace of global trade; Xi wants to show that China won’t blink under pressure. The end result will likely be a communiqué heavy on mutual respect and light on measurable outcomes.

Yet, as always with Trump, what happens after the cameras stop rolling is what really matters. The true deal might not be what’s announced—it’s what’s implied.

Editor’s Note

This article is part of our ongoing coverage of U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration and its ripple effects across global markets. Our analysis aims to cut through the headlines and focus on how the mechanics of trade—tariffs, export controls, and currency flows—actually shape economic outcomes.