Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-25President Xi Jinping’s three-day state visit to the United States concluded last week with little more than a joint communiqué full of diplomatic niceties and nonbinding commitments. The event was a masterclass in ceremonial optics: a White House dinner, a wreath-laying at Arlington, and a photo op on the South Lawn. Yet beneath the surface, the substantive outcomes were conspicuously absent. No new trade agreements. No tariff rollbacks. No concrete pledges on technology transfer or intellectual property enforcement. Xi returned to Beijing with his hands empty, leaving Washington with nothing but a tired diplomatic ritual.
In stark contrast, the structural changes engineered during the Trump administration continue to yield quiet but powerful dividends for the United States. The tariffs imposed under Section 301, the export controls on advanced semiconductors, and the aggressive renegotiation of trade terms have fundamentally altered the U.S.-China economic relationship—not through speeches, but through hard data and market forces. According to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the bilateral trade deficit in goods with China fell from $419 billion in 2018 to $295 billion in 2023, a reduction of nearly 30 percent. While some of that narrowing is cyclical, the structural shift is undeniable.
Xi’s visit was originally billed as a reset, a chance to “stabilize” relations after years of tension. But the reality is that the Trump-era wins have already locked in advantages that no amount of diplomatic theater can reverse. The forced diversification of supply chains, the decoupling of critical technologies, and the rise of alternative manufacturing hubs in Vietnam, India, and Mexico are not temporary aberrations—they are permanent features of the new global order. Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that U.S. imports from China as a share of total imports dropped from 21.4% in 2018 to 16.7% in 2025, while imports from “friendly-shoring” partners rose by double digits.
Why does this matter? Because the quiet wins are structural; the empty visit is cosmetic. Trump’s approach was predicated on the idea that economic leverage, not diplomatic charm, forces China to change its behavior. And the numbers bear that out. The Phase One trade deal, signed in January 2020, forced China to commit to purchasing an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods over two years—a target that, while not fully met, still pushed China to buy record amounts of American agricultural and energy products. Even after the pandemic disrupted global trade, U.S. exports to China reached $151 billion in 2022, a historic high.
Furthermore, the technology restrictions imposed by the Trump administration—particularly the export controls on semiconductor equipment and software—have crippled China’s ability to compete in cutting-edge industries. According to the Semiconductor Industry Association, U.S.-based companies still control nearly 50% of the global chip market, while Chinese firms have lost years of R&D momentum. The Biden administration maintained and even expanded many of these restrictions, a tacit admission that Trump’s strategy was correct. Xi’s visit failed to extract any concessions on this front, as the White House made clear that national security concerns are non-negotiable.
FORTIS analysis: The conventional wisdom in Washington and Brussels often dismisses Trump’s trade war as chaotic or counterproductive. But the data tells a different story. By imposing tariffs and using executive orders, Trump forced a structural recalibration that no amount of diplomatic goodwill could achieve. The cost to American consumers—estimated at around $80 billion annually in higher prices—must be weighed against the long-term strategic benefits of reducing dependence on a geopolitical rival. Free-market purists understand that tariffs are a blunt instrument, but in a world where China uses state subsidies and forced technology transfers to dominate industries, unilateral disarmament is not virtue; it is surrender.
Counterpoint: Critics argue that Trump’s trade war failed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and that the tariffs ultimately hurt American farmers and manufacturers. The U.S. government paid over $28 billion in farm subsidies between 2018 and 2020 to compensate for lost Chinese sales. Moreover, the overall trade deficit with China remains large, and many jobs lost to China have not returned. There is some truth to this. But the alternative—the pre-2018 status quo of passive engagement—was worse. The Trump approach at least created a deterrent and forced China to the table. Xi’s visit, by contrast, achieved none of that. It was a diplomatic band-aid on a structural wound.
Indeed, the contrast between the two approaches is stark. One relies on leverage, pressure, and measurable outcomes. The other relies on smiles, banquets, and vague joint statements. In the long arc of great-power competition, quiet wins—tariff structures, export controls, supply-chain resilience—will prove far more consequential than an empty state visit that yielded nothing but photo opportunities.
**Why didn't Xi's state visit produce any concrete agreements?** The visit was largely a symbolic gesture aimed at de-escalating rhetoric, not at striking deals. The U.S. administration, aware of domestic political sensitivities, refused to offer tariff relief or technology concessions without reciprocal actions from Beijing. China, in turn, was unwilling to make the structural reforms the U.S. demands—such as ending forced technology transfers or stopping state subsidies. The result was a diplomatic holding pattern.
**How do Trump-era policies continue to benefit the U.S. economy today?** The tariffs and export controls remain in place, limiting China’s ability to export cheap goods and acquire advanced technology. Supply chains have shifted away from China, reducing U.S. vulnerability to geopolitical shocks. The U.S. has also seen a boom in semiconductor manufacturing investment, with companies like TSMC and Intel building new fabs on American soil—a direct result of the policy environment created by Trump’s strategy.