Trump-Xi BIT Talks Offer the Narrowest Way Back to Stability
[A bilateral investment treaty could hand Trump and Xi a face-saving win, but only if they can ring-fence sensitive sectors from the wider rivalry.]
Washington and Beijing both want the summit, but for different reasons. The Economist says Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are set to meet in Beijing on May 14-15 after a prior October 2025 meeting that eased tensions only slightly, and argues that the most useful deliverable would be a bilateral investment treaty, or BIT 
The Economist. Reuters, reporting through Al Jazeera, says U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is instead describing a possible “board of trade” and “board of investment” to decide what the two sides can sustainably exchange without crossing national-security red lines 
Reuters. That is the real bargain on offer: not reconciliation, but a rules-based pause in the fight.
Why a treaty is attractive
A BIT works because it gives each capital something it can sell at home. For Trump, a framework that preserves stability while keeping substantial tariffs in place lets him claim he is managing China without surrendering leverage; Greer said the administration wants to maintain that stability and keep access to Chinese rare earths Reuters. For Xi, a treaty is a way to press Washington for clearer rules on investment and fewer arbitrary roadblocks to Chinese firms, which is why the Economist frames the BIT as a way to find middle ground in sensitive sectors The Economist.
The beneficiaries are not the diplomats. They are multinational companies, supply-chain managers and financial markets that have spent the past year pricing in a worse break between the world’s two largest economies. The losers are the hardliners in both capitals who prefer decoupling, because a BIT assumes the relationship will continue — just under narrower, more controlled terms. Reuters’ reporting makes that clear: the proposed investment mechanism would handle specific roadblocks to company investment, not rewrite the whole strategic relationship Reuters.
The constraint is politics, not economics
The economics are straightforward; the politics are not. Brookings notes that both sides see summit diplomacy as a way to prolong fragile stability, and that Beijing wants the relationship framed around mutual respect and future engagement rather than one-off concessions 
Brookings. That is why a BIT is the only plausible near-term instrument: it avoids the hardest files — tariffs, export controls, Taiwan, and industrial policy — while still letting both leaders claim progress.
But a treaty only works if it survives domestic scrutiny. In Washington, lawmakers hostile to Chinese electric vehicle and critical-infrastructure investment will treat any opening as a security risk. In Beijing, officials will not sell a deal that looks like capitulation to U.S. screening or technology controls. So the treaty’s value is less in its legal text than in the signal it sends: the two sides are still managing competition through institutions, not pure escalation The Economist.
What to watch next
The next decision point is the May 14-15 summit The Economist. If Trump and Xi jointly endorse BIT negotiations, the real work shifts to technocrats and lawyers. If they only agree to keep talking, the summit becomes a managed pause. Either way, the power remains with the side that can say yes to a process without conceding the principle — and that is why this pact matters for 
Global Politics and for the next phase of U.S.-China competition.
