Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
When US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping asked to see me, I was sceptical. I wasn’t sure I would be able to help; as a couples therapist, I tend to work with partners struggling with miscommunication, resentment and distrust. They shared a knowing look and reminded me that, as the leaders of the two largest economies in the world, they could pay me many multiples of my usual extortionate rate. We booked in a session. And, having just met them, now I get it.
I opened as I normally do, with a question vague enough to hide the fact that I hadn’t read the form I made them fill out beforehand. Trump gave his version of their problems, explaining that his predecessors had tried to fix China’s economic flaws (subsidies, trade barriers and a tendency to overfill America’s fridge) and the US was now being rewarded with abuse. He wanted to go back to how it used to be, when trade was more balanced and China focused on basic staples. With Xi threatening export restrictions on rare earths, their relationship had turned from troubled to toxic.
It was clear from Xi’s rolling eyes that he didn’t accept this framing. Healthy relationships don’t include one party “fixing” the other. Why couldn’t his country be accepted for what it was? He also wasn’t going to take the blame for excess, noting that for all the complaints about him bringing over too much food, the US seemed happy enough to snack. And after years of mistreatment, including disengagement (tariffs) and threats (export controls), he’d had enough.
After nodding sagely and penning what looked like notes, but was in fact a doodle of a kangaroo, I asked them to share their goals. Trump started dramatically waving a shopping list he had been trying to foist on Xi. (“Fill your own fridge, dammit!”) I noted that this seemed a little transactional, and that trying to micromanage trade in over $400bn in goods might prove impossible. Trump replied that the list only covered $30bn to $40bn of purchases each way, and that with so little trust he had no choice.
Xi wearily explained that he just wanted an end to the drama, which was a distraction from more pressing problems including a dwindling supply of heating oil, a soggy domestic economy and a mountain of domestically held debt. Predicting Trump’s mood swings was emotionally exhausting and good for no one, least of all their kids. When I probed about these offspring, he explained that this was their nickname for the many companies that had set up supply chains assuming that US-China relations would be stable.
With the clock ticking, I asked them to outline some next steps. Silence. Perhaps some more meetings this year? They said that they had already pencilled in three. More silence. I suggested that they could work on their communication or consider a deeper agreement governing trade or investment to provide reassurance to their anxious children. There was some mumbling about wanting to keep their options open and not wanting to reinforce their interdependence. More silence. Then they left.
I suppose the fact that they’re willing to be in a room together is a good sign (though their insistence that their counselling session was in fact a summit was strange). Still, I’m not hopeful for this particular relationship. Both sides bear more responsibility than they are willing to admit: the Americans should probably go an economic diet and stop consuming quite so much, while the Chinese should probably stop supplying so much. And both parties are strong enough to resist ceding ground.
American complaints of not feeling heard miss the fact that China is listening, but not responding in the intended way. The pair are feeding off each other’s desire for independence in a mutually reinforcing spiral. And even I can see that a grand reconciliation is a stretch, given their (rational) desire to protect themselves from future fights. Asking them to be vulnerable with one another is going to get nowhere. Even the kids are increasingly picking sides.
For a moment, I consider the ethics of continuing our sessions. When neither country seems to want to transform their relationship for the better, there’s only so much that a shrink can do. Then again, a full divorce could be so explosive that it would hurt more than those metaphorical children. So that’s settled: I’ll listen to them snipe at each other and hope that the kids — and the global economy — will cope.
[email protected]
Soumaya’s book ‘How to Win a Trade War’ is out later this month
