A newly proposed "Board of Trade" emerged from the two-day Trump-Xi summit in Beijing, signalling a shift from episodic tariff fights to institutional management of US-China commercial disputes. The talks on May 14-15, 2026 produced no timetable, but James Zimmerman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China told CNBC the platform could give companies the predictability they have long sought after a period of abrupt policy swings. Delegates and business leaders said predictability, not headline purchase orders, was the central business interest coming out of the meeting, and officials urged follow-up talks to broaden the agenda to healthcare, climate and technology governance.

The summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Beijing was read by some business groups as a pivot from episodic bargaining to institutional management of disputes. James Zimmerman, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, told CNBC that the most meaningful outcome may be a newly proposed Board of Trade. He said the platform could give companies the predictability and guardrails they have long been waiting for, particularly after a period of abrupt policy swings and higher tariffs under the current US administration.

From tariff skirmishes to a standing forum

Zimmerman framed the summit as moving beyond headline-grabbing tariff exchanges. He described the Board of Trade as a structural outcome that could address tariff disputes, trade barriers and other bilateral business issues. For firms that have faced sudden changes in US policy, predictability is the central business interest coming out of the meeting, he said to CNBC.

The proposal is, at least publicly, the most concrete initiative discussed. No firm timeline for creation or modalities for the board was announced at the summit. Sources differ on the scope and immediacy of any institutional steps, with business groups and former officials at the Beijing forum urging that follow-up negotiations broaden the agenda to include non-trade areas that affect long-term strategic competition.

Roberta Lipson, founder of United Family Healthcare, told delegates she expected the summit to produce transactional wins such as soybean and aircraft orders and further tariff reductions. She said such deals would stabilise sentiment in the business community, signalling that some commercial relief was likely to follow the leaders' talks.

Mastheads

Security issues and a wider agenda

Even as trade nominees and purchase orders were flagged, officials and analysts warned that narrower trade deals won't resolve deeper tensions between the United States and China. At a forum organised by the Centre for China and Globalisation, former diplomats and business representatives urged follow-up talks to address healthcare, climate change, technological decoupling and AI governance.

They argued that these non-trade issues shape the strategic competition and will require separate, sustained attention beyond what a trade board might handle.

Taiwan was a distinct source of anxiety in the run-up to the summit. Deputy Foreign Minister Francois Wu of Taiwan told Bloomberg News he feared Taipei could be placed "on the menu" at the meeting. He warned that a verbal confirmation or a formal shift in US policy on Taiwan would be a major win for Beijing. Wu said Taiwan had not received guarantees that US language on the island would remain unchanged, while noting continued efforts to deepen economic ties with the United States, particularly in semiconductors.

The summit followed an earlier encounter between the two leaders in Busan on October 30, 2025. Observers noted that the mid-May meeting had been postponed from late March because of the war between Israel and Iran and because of scheduling demands on the US president. In prior rounds of negotiation, topics that surfaced included tariff reductions, purchases of US agricultural goods and potential pauses or adjustments to Chinese export controls on strategic materials.

At the Beijing forum, voices from industry and diplomacy pressed for a broader remit to avoid repeating past cycles of deal-by-deal accommodation. They urged that any Board of Trade be designed with clear procedures and a remit capable of handling disputes that touch on national security, industrial policy and emerging technologies, rather than serving only as a channel for short-term commercial contracts.

There was unanimity among business commentators that predictability, not headline purchase orders alone, will determine whether the summit changes business planning. Companies that have endured abrupt policy changes welcomed the idea of guardrails. But the lack of an agreed timeline or detailed modalities left many uncertain about when, if ever, a permanent mechanism will be in place.

Related Articles

No launch date for the proposed Board of Trade was announced. The clearest public account remains James Zimmerman’s comments to CNBC, while business and diplomatic voices at parallel forums called for broader follow-up negotiations on healthcare, climate and technology governance.

This article was created with AI assistance.