President Donald Trump told reporters Monday aboard Air Force One that he believes the United States commands “great respect” from Beijing and expressed confidence he will reach a “fantastic deal” with Chinese President Xi Jinping when the two leaders meet in the coming weeks. The remarks, made as Trump returned from Florida, come against the backdrop of a fresh round of tariff threats that have already provoked public comment from Chinese officials.

Beijing's response last week, voiced by Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, cautioned against entering the next phase of the relationship through coercion: “Threatening high tariffs is not the right way to deal with China,” Lin said. That rebuke highlighted how trade instruments remain front and center in U.S.-China diplomacy, even as both capitals balance cooperation and competition across economics, technology and security.

The promise of a bilateral bargain recalls earlier stages of the relationship between the two leaders. The presidents previously met on the margins of multilateral summits, including a handshake at the 2019 G-20 summit in Osaka. Analysts say the optics of personal diplomacy will matter, but so too will the substance—particularly whether any understanding addresses structural issues that have long divided the two economies, from industrial policy and subsidies to market access and intellectual property.

Tariffs are an immediate lever with tangible consequences for global supply chains. For exporters, multinational firms and countries integrated into production networks, sudden or expansive tariff increases can disrupt flows, raise costs and force rapid adjustments in sourcing. For governments, tariffs remain a blunt tool that can elicit retaliatory measures, complicate cooperation on nontrade issues, and test the limits of the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution mechanisms.

Diplomacy around such high-stakes economic policy requires careful legal and cultural navigation. International law provides mechanisms and constraints, but the efficacy of rules-based dispute settlement depends on both parties' willingness to engage in good faith and accept institutional outcomes. Cultural awareness of negotiation styles and face-saving measures can reduce the risk that public rhetoric undermines private bargaining, a point underscored by Beijing’s swift public rebuttal.

Beyond commerce, the meeting will be watched for signals on technology restrictions, export controls and broader strategic competition. Allies and partners in Asia and Europe will be attentive to whether any U.S.-China understanding accommodates their security concerns or creates new dependencies. For Washington, the balance between asserting leverage and preserving stable global markets presents a persistent dilemma.

As the two leaders prepare to meet, the tenor and mechanics of negotiation will be as consequential as any final text. How Washington and Beijing choose to deploy tariffs, engage multilateral institutions and frame concessions will shape not only bilateral ties but the global economic and diplomatic architecture that depends upon them.