After months of speculation, President Trump arrived in Beijing on May 13 for a brief state visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The visit featured photo opportunities, handshakes, and exclusive walks in Xi’s garden.
The main goal of this visit was to set the tone for a year where the two leaders might meet up to four times, which is significant for the Trump administration’s future interactions. A key outcome was their agreement on framing the bilateral relationship: government readouts from both sides noted they agreed to shape the US-China relationship around “constructive strategic stability.”
This agreement marks a positive initial step toward resetting a relationship that has grown increasingly tense over the past decade. It also opens the door for enhanced cooperation on nuclear weapons.
What is strategic stability?
Traditionally, strategic stability refers to a balance between two nuclear-armed states where neither side is incentivized to strike first, as both can retaliate with severe consequences. The “constructive” strategic stability agreed upon by Trump and Xi is a broader concept. According to Xi’s comments from the official Chinese readout, it involves a stable relationship marked by cooperation, benign competition, peace, and manageable differences—a balanced equilibrium that acknowledges differences while fostering cooperation.
Xi’s view that managed, healthy competition should be the goal represents a shift in China’s stance. Previously, Chinese leadership often argued that competition was an unhealthy framework for the relationship. When Xi met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Beijing in 2023, he stated that “great power competition does not accord with the times and cannot solve the United States’ problems.”
Although China’s approach to relations with the US largely remains unchanged from 2023, the shift to “managed competition” is significant. It acknowledges that the two global powers will naturally compete for influence and leadership in various sectors and highlights the need to define what constitutes harmful competition and establish clear boundaries. This tentative agreement shows a mutual interest in avoiding tension and confrontation while maximizing cooperation where interests align.
While this is not a particularly high bar, it is a promising start. “Stability” is about avoiding negative outcomes, but the “constructive” aspect suggests a collaborative effort to improve the relationship rather than simply accepting its current state.
Will it stick?
China will be observing whether the Trump administration, known for its unpredictable rhetoric and policies, adheres to this framework. Beijing often perceives the US as calling for stability measures only to then provoke confrontation or crisis through its China policy. China prefers focusing on crisis prevention rather than crisis management. Meanwhile, the US accuses China of ignoring crisis management measures to protest US actions elsewhere in the relationship; Washington desires guardrails that are isolated from other bilateral developments.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has emphasized the importance of enhancing military communication between the two countries. Although the US appears willing to engage in dialogue with China, Beijing will be cautious to see if actions undermine these words. The Trump administration now includes fewer figures with negative views of China, unlike the first administration which included John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who opposed constructive relations with Beijing.
While we shouldn’t overstate the significance of constructive strategic stability, the fact that both sides agreed to it is noteworthy. Speaking on the Shēng Dōng Jī Xī podcast, Da Wei, director of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, noted that the US agreeing to a bilateral relationship concept proposed by China is unprecedented. Its inclusion in the White House’s readout as an agreement between Xi and Trump suggests the US is taking Chinese concerns seriously and working towards a mutually acceptable framework.
Regarding crisis management versus prevention, the US has traditionally preferred resolving specific issues without addressing broader bilateral ties, contrasting with China’s approach. Da Wei suggests that agreeing on constructive strategic stability could be the first step toward overcoming this impasse.
The nuclear side
Constructive strategic stability might also pave the way for traditional strategic stability in nuclear weapons.
Chinese arms control experts have outlined that the most likely form of arms control between China and the US is risk reduction, unlike treaties like New START which limit US and Russian warheads and launchers. China’s smaller, asymmetric nuclear force means it keeps its warhead numbers and launcher locations secret, engaging in multilateral treaties but showing limited interest in bilateral agreements.
Chinese experts increasingly worry that the US is unconcerned with nuclear strategic stability, especially after the introduction of Golden Dome, a missile defense system meant to defend against both small nuclear threats and nuclear powers like Russia and China.
Although China’s nuclear arsenal has grown due to concerns over US missile defense advancements, it maintains a “no first use” policy, insisting its arsenal is minimal for national security. Greater confidence in the survivability of its arsenal could encourage China to engage more in nuclear risk-reduction discussions. If the US shows a commitment to constructive strategic stability across all areas of the relationship, progress on nuclear dialogue is more likely.
However, such progress will require concessions from the Trump administration. China has long sought US acknowledgment of mutual vulnerability, meaning neither side can fully prevent the other from launching a retaliatory strike—a key component of strategic stability.
A year ago, it seemed unlikely that this administration would consider this, yet few predicted a meeting in Beijing where Trump would agree to pursue constructive strategic stability. To advance this relationship, both sides need to agree on their destination. While constructive strategic stability may be a vague goal, it’s a starting point.
