CEOs seek predictability in Beijing

Tariffs are the point here — but the real story is planning. Big companies can survive bad rules more easily than they can survive rules that keep changing. That is why some U.S. CEOs are going to Beijing with Donald Trump next week. They are not chasing a grand U.S.-China reset. They are chasing something more basic: a stable enough trade regime to make decisions that last longer than a headline. ### Who is actually going? The clearest names so far are Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman and Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser. Bloomberg says they plan to join Trump for the May 14-15 summit with Xi Jinping in Beijing. That matters because both are establishment business figures, not ideological China hawks. Their presence signals that the White House wants a business lane at the summit, even if the politics stay tense. (bloomberg.com) ### Why do CEOs care so much about “predictability”? Because “predictability” is really code for capital spending, sourcing, and pricing. A company can hedge around a 10% tariff or a licensing delay if it thinks the rule will stick. But it cannot sensibly build a supply chain if tariffs get announced, revised, delayed, reworked under a different legal authority, or knocked back by courts. The New York Times’ tariff timeline makes that instability the core fact of the moment. (bloomberg.com) ### Why is the ask so modest? Because expectations for the summit are low. The likeliest deliverables look small and transactional — maybe an extension of the existing trade truce, maybe Chinese purchases like soybeans or Boeing planes, maybe some narrow understanding on export controls and semiconductors. Bloomberg’s read is basically: don’t expect resolution on the big fights over tariffs, chips, rare earths, and Taiwan. (nytimes.com) ### What truce are they trying to preserve? The current baseline is the one-year trade truce Trump and Xi reached in late October 2025. That agreement lowered some tariffs and export-control pressure, but it was always temporary. Now traders and executives are looking past the symbolism of the Beijing meeting and asking whether that truce gets extended beyond its current October 2026 horizon. If it does, companies get more breathing room. (bloomberg.com) If it does not, they have to start gaming out another escalation. ### Why do semiconductors keep coming up? Because chips are where trade policy turns into industrial policy. Tariffs hurt margins, but chip controls can decide whether a product ships at all. Businesses are watching for any framework that would make the rules on permitted sales, licensing, and future restrictions less improvisational. Even a narrow process for continued talks would matter, because right now firms are operating in a zone where the policy direction is clear — tougher — but the exact boundary lines keep moving. (cfr.org) That is poison for long-cycle investment. ### What else is crowding the summit? Iran and energy. Bloomberg says the summit was already rescheduled once because of the war, and China’s concerns about Middle East energy flows are hanging over the meeting. That does two things at once. It raises the stakes for both sides to keep the relationship from blowing up. But it also makes it harder for trade and semiconductor issues to get the full negotiating bandwidth companies want. (bloomberg.com) ### So what should readers watch for? Not a breakthrough. Watch for signs of durability. A truce extension matters more than a flashy announcement. A narrow chips working group matters more than warm summit optics. And any signal that tariff policy will stop lurching between executive action, legal challenge, and redesign would probably be the most valuable outcome for business — even if it sounds boring. (bloomberg.com) ### Bottom line? The CEOs going to Beijing are not there because they think Trump and Xi are about to solve everything. They are there because uncertainty itself has become the tax. If the summit produces steadier rules, even without a big deal, that may be enough to count as progress. (bloomberg.com) (nytimes.com)