Professor Li Haidong of China Foreign Affairs University told the Global Times on June 5 that the phone conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump covered a range of issues, but primarily focused on a central topic in current bilateral relations—trade and economic affairs. According to Li, the Chinese side clearly identified the root cause of tensions in the relationship: stable and constructive China-U.S. ties must be built on the basis of mutual respect and a U.S. approach that treats China as an equal while addressing China’s core concerns. He noted that the content of the call reflected a strong sense of principle on China’s part, conveyed a generally positive tone, and addressed highly pragmatic topics.

Zhou Mi, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Ministry of Commerce, told the Global Times that the June 5 conversation between the Chinese and U.S. leaders has helped chart a direction and lay a foundation for upcoming trade negotiations. He expressed confidence that the call will provide clearer guidance for bilateral economic and trade consultations and facilitate the achievement of broader consensus in future talks.

A Chinese expert, speaking to the Global Times, said that the call between the two heads of state is likely to help ease recent tensions in China-U.S. relations caused by a series of U.S. policy moves. The expert noted that the conversation enables both sides to better manage differences and expand the basis for cooperation. He added that the call once again highlights China’s consistent framing of the bilateral relationship—emphasizing cooperation, building consensus, and pursuing mutually beneficial outcomes.

A Detail in the Call

Lv Xiang, a Special Research Fellow at the Center for World Politics Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out in an interview with the Global Times a noteworthy detail: the call between the two leaders was initiated “at the U.S. request.” This indicates that the initiative lay with the Chinese side and reflects a degree of anxiety on the part of the United States. As the U.S. pursues “decoupling” from China, it risks facing backlash. Li Haidong noted that proactively seeking dialogue with China is, in fact, the optimal approach for the U.S. to address its own domestic economic difficulties.

Prior to the leaders’ call, other official interactions took place between the two countries. On June 5, Chinese Vice President Han Zheng met in Beijing with the U.S. delegation to the high-level Track II dialogue. Han stated that China-U.S. relations are at a critical historical juncture. Mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation between China and the United States would benefit not only the two countries but also global peace and development.

The U.S. side expressed that the high-level Track II dialogue helps promote mutual understanding and offers constructive ideas for the development of bilateral ties. They remarked that China’s economic growth is impressive and that the two countries should enhance dialogue and cooperation in areas such as trade and investment.

On June 3, Wang Yi, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs, met in Beijing with David Perdue, the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to China. Wang emphasized that following the Geneva economic and trade talks, China had earnestly and rigorously implemented the consensus reached by both sides. However, he expressed regret that the United States had recently introduced a series of negative measures based on unfounded accusations, which harmed China’s legitimate rights and interests. China firmly opposes such actions.

Ambassador Perdue stated that President Trump holds deep respect for President Xi Jinping and that positive, constructive engagement between the two leaders is of great importance. As the U.S. Ambassador to China, he expressed his willingness to maintain close communication with the Chinese side in the spirit of mutual respect and mutual understanding.

These frequent interactions between China and the United States come against a backdrop of growing disputes and tensions that have triggered widespread concern. On June 4, CNN reported that although some progress appeared to have been made in last month’s Geneva negotiations—both sides expressed intent to reduce certain tariffs—weeks later, the U.S. accused China of “violating” the agreement. Simultaneously, Washington announced plans to cancel visas for Chinese students and to restrict exports to China of certain software used in designing advanced semiconductors.

Lianhe Zaobao noted that recent frictions between China and the U.S. have spanned a wide range of areas , including trade, technology, and education. In addition, rare earth exports have emerged as a new focal point of bilateral tensions. On June 4, The New York Times reported that the U.S.-China trade conflict is evolving from a tariff dispute into a broader contest over control of global supply chains. The restriction of critical technologies could have lasting effects on dozens of industries.

CNN commented that the escalating tensions underscored the necessity for direct communication between the two leaders. A White House official, speaking before the call, stated that both trade teams believed communication “needed to be elevated to the highest level.”

Lv Xiang observed that China is currently responding to U.S. “coercion” with strategic composure, rather than compromising under pressure. China’s decisions are consistently guided by the shared interests of both nations and the broader international community. In contrast to the volatility of U.S. policy toward China in recent years, China’s position has remained clear and consistent. Beijing has no intention of replacing or suppressing the United States, nor has it ever based its development on undermining the interests of other countries. China welcomes U.S. prosperity—but such development must be founded on equality, mutual benefit, and respect for each other’s interests, not on the suppression of China in pursuit of so-called “prosperity.”
Zhou Mi told the Global Times that recent U.S. actions are detrimental to building mutual trust. If both sides wish to achieve outcomes satisfactory to both parties in the next phase of talks, it is essential to avoid actions that contravene prior consensus.

The American Public Clearly Wants to Manage, Not Escalate, U.S.-China Competition

Regarding U.S.-China trade negotiations, The Washington Times on June 5 described them as high-stakes. Unlike other countries that have come to the negotiating table, China has responded to the U.S. government’s tariff measures with countermeasures of its own. Wendy Cutler, Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that this time China appears better prepared for the talks.

“Why should the United States negotiate with China? ” asked an article published on June 4 by the Brookings Institution. It argued that there is no credible way for the United States to seal itself off from the effects of China’s actions. The piece outlined four core purposes of direct negotiations: (1) clarify top priorities and concerns about the other side’s actions; (2) mitigate the risk of conflict; (3) capitalize on opportunities for coordination on shared challenges; (4) resolve areas of dispute that are ripe for solutions, even as there are few issues that presently would fit in this category. The article concluded that the American public clearly wants to manage the competition with China rather than allow it to escalate into open conflict.

As the leaders of China and the United States held their phone call, the tariff policy adopted by the White House continued to stir anxiety across the U.S. CNN reported on June 4 that members of the American business community said the tariffs and other policy shifts had caused a major stir. One U.S. electronics manufacturer stated that sweeping policy changes from the federal government are “raising hell with businesses. ”. According to multiple surveys released this week, enterprises across sectors and of all sizes are struggling to navigate the uncertainty caused by U.S. government policies. In the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, the term “tariffs” was mentioned 80 times, while “uncertainty” appeared 76 times. Since the beginning of the year, both U.S. businesses and consumers have remained in a prolonged state of tension.

Editor: LQQ