“The conversation went well,” but no consensus has been reached yet—it still requires time, and it sets the tone for this week’s meeting between the Chinese and U.S. presidents. The U.S. and China have announced an extension of the trade truce until January 2027, granting an additional 60 days for negotiations. Bessen and He Lifeng held marathon talks in New York on September 20 and met again on September 23 at the World Bank headquarters in Washington. Ultimately, both sides agreed to extend the validity of the Busan Agreement, covering tariffs and other measures, from its original expiration date of November 10 to January 10, 2027. Why extend it by only two months? Are the differences still too great, or is there some progress? Bessen explicitly stated that the extension is intended to “give us more time to see what else we can do economically,” and to explore whether a “bigger deal” can be reached—not just a series of piecemeal transactions. At the same time, he added: “I don’t know whether a more comprehensive agreement is possible, or whether we’re simply renewing the existing one.” From a personal perspective, the situation more closely resembles “differences remain, requiring time for observation and pressure, while keeping negotiation channels open,” rather than “an agreement has largely been reached, with only details left to finalize.” Let’s examine the logic: 1) The short duration indicates that neither side has yet negotiated a long-term arrangement. Previously, the Financial Times reported that China hoped for a much longer extension—some even suggested until the end of Trump’s term—while the U.S. had considered a six-month extension. The final two-month extension reveals significant gaps on key questions: how long the truce should last and under what conditions. If a broad agreement were close, a longer extension or an announcement of a framework would typically be made immediately. 2) The U.S. is using the time window to pressure China to fulfill its commitments. Bessen repeatedly emphasized that certain Chinese pledges—such as rare earth deliveries not fully meeting targets and sluggish purchases of agricultural products—have not been adequately implemented. The two-month extension effectively gives China a probationary period: if performance improves over the coming months, the U.S. may be more willing to negotiate a larger deal or extend further; if not, pressure will resurface after the November deadline. This is a classic “negotiate while pressuring, fulfill while deciding next steps” strategy. 3) There has been progress, but it is tactical and incremental—not structural. The fact that both sides held two marathon talks within four days and swiftly agreed on an extension shows that communication channels remain open and neither side wants to reignite the tariff war ahead of the Xi-Trump meeting. Specific issues such as tariff relief on $30 billion in non-sensitive goods and an AI hotline are also under discussion, indicating tangible areas for incremental gains. However, these are essentially “patches” or “addendums” to the existing Busan Agreement framework, not solutions to core structural issues—such as high-tech export controls, industrial subsidies, long-term critical mineral supply, market access, or national security reviews. 4) Timing is critical. The announcement of the extension was deliberately timed to coincide with Xi’s arrival in Washington, clearly intended to “cool down” tensions ahead of the summit. Both sides need this meeting to appear productive—at minimum, not to end in failure. The two-month extension also strategically ends in early 2027, leaving room for potential future leader-level meetings—such as the possible APEC summit in Shenzhen this November or the G20 meeting in Miami in December. This is neither a sign of negotiation collapse nor an indication that a major deal is imminent. Rather, it reflects that both sides still want to talk and still need each other—but lack trust and face deep differences in core interests. Thus, they have chosen to “hold the fire at bay for two months” while observing compliance and assessing whether a broader agreement might be possible. From this perspective, the truce extension also sets the tone for this week’s Xi-Trump meeting: full reconciliation is unattainable, and breakthrough results are unlikely.