The highly anticipated summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, scheduled for May 14-15 in Beijing, was expected to feature the first official dialogue on artificial intelligence (AI) between the two administrations. However, the escalating conflict in Iran is now threatening to crowd out the AI agenda, as well as discussions on tariffs and rare earths, according to recent reports.
The proposed AI talks were intended to address the dangers posed by unpredictable AI models, autonomous weapons systems, and potential attacks by nonstate actors using advanced open-source technologies. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reportedly leading the American side on the AI track, while Chinese vice finance minister Liao Min has been involved in preliminary discussions .
The AI Dialogue That Almost Was
The Trump administration’s push for a formal AI dialogue with China represents a significant shift in approach. The previous administration had opened formal AI talks with China at a 2023 summit in California, which led to a 2024 agreement that placed authority for nuclear weapons use in human hands, not AI. However, those talks produced limited progress, largely because China placed its foreign ministry, rather than technical experts, in charge of negotiations.
The current administration’s decision to put Treasury Secretary Bessent in charge of the AI track, rather than a national security or technology official, signals that the US views the AI competition primarily through an economic and trade lens. This framing may make it easier to reach agreements on commercial AI practices, but could limit the scope of discussions on the more sensitive military and intelligence applications of AI.
The specific agenda for the proposed AI talks reportedly included discussions on the risks posed by autonomous AI systems making consequential decisions without human oversight, the proliferation of advanced open-source models that could be weaponized by non-state actors, and the potential for AI-enabled cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. These are precisely the areas where both sides have the most to gain from establishing shared norms and communication channels.
(Related: US and China Weigh Putting AI on the Agenda for Trump-Xi Summit)
Iran Dominates the Diplomatic Agenda
Despite the urgency of these AI-related issues, the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East is demanding immediate attention. US Treasury Secretary Bessent recently urged China to “join us in this international operation” to open the Strait of Hormuz, highlighting the economic and strategic stakes of the Iran conflict.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, through which approximately 20% of global oil supplies pass. A prolonged closure of the strait due to the ongoing conflict would trigger a global energy crisis, with severe economic consequences for both the US and China. For Beijing, which is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil imports, the stakes are particularly high.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi was in Beijing this week, briefing his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on US-Iran talks. The diplomatic maneuvering underscores China’s complex role in the region. Beijing has historically maintained close economic ties with Tehran, and its position as a potential mediator gives it significant leverage in resolving the conflict. However, this same leverage means that China will be under intense pressure to use its influence constructively, potentially at the expense of other agenda items at the summit.
The Opportunity Cost of Crisis Diplomacy
The displacement of AI talks by the Iran crisis illustrates a broader challenge in managing the US-China relationship: the sheer volume of pressing issues competing for attention at the highest levels of both governments. In any given bilateral meeting, the most urgent crisis tends to crowd out the more strategically important but less immediately pressing concerns.
This dynamic is particularly problematic for AI governance, which requires sustained, technical engagement over time rather than high-level political commitments. The kind of detailed discussions needed to establish shared norms for AI safety, data governance, and military AI use cannot be conducted effectively in the margins of a summit dominated by a geopolitical crisis.
The risk is that the window for establishing meaningful AI governance frameworks between the US and China will close before the two sides can engage seriously. As AI systems become more powerful and more deeply embedded in critical infrastructure, the consequences of a governance vacuum become increasingly severe.
(Related: MiroMind Halts China Services After Manus Saga)
The Distillation Dispute
Adding another layer of complexity to the proposed AI talks is the ongoing dispute over AI technology theft. In late April, the US accused China-linked groups of stealing American AI technology on a large scale and warned it would step up enforcement against the unauthorized “distillation” of advanced AI models, a process by which a less capable model is trained on the outputs of a more capable one, effectively transferring knowledge without authorization.
China has dismissed these accusations as groundless, arguing that the development of capable AI models through legitimate research and engineering is not theft. The distillation dispute reflects a deeper disagreement about intellectual property rights in the AI era, where the boundaries between inspiration, imitation, and theft are genuinely unclear.
Resolving this dispute, or at least establishing a shared framework for addressing it, would be a significant achievement of any AI dialogue. However, it is also one of the most contentious issues, and the Iran crisis may provide both sides with a convenient excuse to defer these difficult conversations.
A Delayed, Not Cancelled, Dialogue
Despite the challenges, analysts suggest that the AI dialogue is likely to be delayed rather than permanently cancelled. Both sides have strong incentives to engage on AI governance: the US seeks to establish rules that constrain China’s most aggressive AI practices, while China seeks recognition as an equal partner in shaping global AI norms.
As the summit approaches, the focus on Iran may delay progress on AI and other critical issues. But the underlying strategic logic for AI dialogue remains compelling, and the two sides are likely to find a way to keep the conversation alive, even if the formal talks must wait for a less turbulent moment in global affairs.