Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Following President Donald Trump’s two-day state visit to Beijing in mid-May 2026 and his return to Washington, reports began to mount of discrepancies between his accounts and the official statements issued by China and the Gulf states. Trump used his return journey and subsequent comments to announce successes in his talks with Xi Jinping – particularly regarding trade, Taiwan and the ongoing conflict with Iran. At the same time, he claimed that leaders of the Gulf states had asked him to postpone a planned military strike against Iran. Many of these statements were not confirmed or were directly qualified by the respective parties. The incidents shed light on an increasingly recurring pattern in Trump’s second term.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun and official statements remained – to put it mildly – significantly more cautious. Beijing merely emphasised that there was “no reason” for the war to continue and that shipping routes should be reopened “as soon as possible”.
There was no confirmation of a specific commitment from Xi to avoid Iranian transit duties through the Strait of Hormuz, Xi’s alleged promise not to supply weapons to Iran, or that China would take on an active mediating role to resolve the conflict instigated by Washington. On the contrary: the Chinese side rejected reports that China had agreed to restrict its sovereign defence relations with Iran. A direct rebuttal stated, in essence, that Xi had “never said such a thing”.
Similar discrepancies arose on the subject of rare earths and export controls. The US account spoke of a far-reaching lifting of Chinese restrictions, whilst Beijing kept its wording vague and less binding.
The accumulation of such discrepancies, in which Trump publicly presented his wishful thinking as facts, and the swift distancing by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, were noticed even by the US journalists present at the summit in Beijing.
Here is the question from the New York Times reporter: “President Trump said that China had agreed to buy 200 Boeing jets. What is China’s position? Thank you very much.”
Boeing had openly hoped for an order of 500 large aircraft, but the company representatives had to return home without a firm order for a single aircraft. Trump, on the other hand, trumpeted to the world that Beijing had ordered 200 jets. What follows is a masterstroke of Chinese diplomacy. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson replied: “Economic and trade relations between the US and China are mutually beneficial and of a win-win nature. Both sides must act on the basis of the important joint agreements reached between the two heads of state and bring greater stability to bilateral economic and trade cooperation as well as to the global economy.”
That answered the New York Times’ question. Spokesperson Guo looked around for the next question from AFP. This concerned Trump’s second claim, namely that China might buy US oil: “During the talks between Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping – did China agree to buy US oil in future?”
This question, too, was answered magnificently – Trump was thoroughly humiliated without a single harsh word from the Chinese spokesperson: “China is prepared to work with all parties to ensure global energy security and maintain the stability of global industrial and supply chains. The urgent task is to restore peace and stability in the Gulf region and the Middle East. Thank you very much.‘
Next question – the background to this was that Xi had warned Trump about the ’Thucydides Trap” during the public part of the summit statements. This is a well-known theory from ancient Greece that is still discussed in security policy today.
According to this theory, it is inevitable that the declining hegemon (which was Athens) will become embroiled in war with the rising rival (Sparta). In doing so, the Chinese President had indirectly portrayed the US as an empire in decline. When US journalists addressed this topic with Trump on board Air Force One during the return flight to Washington, he said verbatim:
“Xi made a statement; it may not have come directly from him. It was someone else, but they spoke of decline. But he said today, and he said it very publicly, he said that the US had been in decline over the last four years. And he also said that what President Trump has done over the last 15, 16 months was practically a miracle. He said we (the US) had the hottest, he said we had the hottest country in the world. But he said it had been a country in decline under Joe Biden.” (The repetitions in the text are from the original.)
However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson did not confirm this claim by Trump either when asked a corresponding question by a Bloomberg reporter. The question was: “On Truth Social, President Trump said that when President Xi described the US as a nation in decline, he was actually referring to the period under Biden and other administrations, and not to the Trump administration. With regard to this social media post by President Trump, can you confirm that the content of this statement was accurate? Was that exactly what was said, or does China view the US today as in decline?‘
Had Xi actually said that the decline of the US had taken place during the four years of the Biden administration, one would have expected a clear confirmation of this statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson. Instead, he opted for a philosophical response: ’President Trump hopes to make America great again. Under his leadership, the American people and the United States have achieved significant successes for the prosperity of their country. President Xi Jinping is leading the Chinese people in the endeavour to realise the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Both China and the United States stand to benefit from their respective development and rejuvenation efforts if they strengthen cooperation with one another.”
Gulf states deny Trump’s claim
The discrepancy became even clearer in Trump’s statement regarding a planned US attack on Iran. On the flight back from Beijing and in subsequent comments, Trump explained that he had postponed a “firmly planned attack” by a few days after the heads of state and government of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates had asked him to do so. ‘Serious negotiations’ were underway, and the Gulf states considered an imminent agreement possible. Trump said he had been ‘an hour’ away from ordering the attack.
Government officials from the Gulf states concerned contradicted this account to US journalists. They stated that they had been unaware of any immediate US plans for an attack and had not made such a request. The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives of the states in question explicitly stated that they had not been informed of an imminent operation. This publicly called into question – or effectively refuted – Trump’s claim of active diplomatic intervention by the Gulf partners.
If, in times of dangerous geopolitical tensions, the US President’s word cannot be relied upon at all, then that does not bode well for the world.
