theSIGNAL NEWS
23 September 2026
"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way."
World

Trump and Xi Meet Again — With AI Now on the Table

The two leaders gather in the United States on September 24, facing the same trio of flashpoints as last time — but artificial intelligence has changed the stakes dramatically.

Washington is preparing for its most consequential diplomatic meeting of the year. On September 24, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will sit down on American soil for a summit that is expected to cover trade, technology and Taiwan — the same agenda that dominated their May 2026 encounter. What has shifted sharply since then is the urgency around artificial intelligence, which has moved so fast that both governments now treat it as a matter of national security, not just commerce. The most immediate task for both leaders will be renewing the Busan trade pact, hammered out last year in South Korea.

Under that deal, the United States agreed to ease some export controls on advanced technology and to reduce triple-digit tariffs on Chinese goods, while Beijing pledged not to cut off critical minerals and rare earths that American industry depends on. Negotiators expect the new arrangement to look much like the old one, though two proposed joint institutions — a Board of Trade and a Board of Investment — remain poorly defined, and business leaders on both sides are pressing for concrete details. China is also considering bringing its own top executives to mirror the presence of Nvidia's Jensen Huang and Tesla's Elon Musk, who accompanied Trump to Beijing earlier this year. Taiwan will be in the room without being on the formal agenda.

Trump has consistently avoided his predecessor's stronger language on defending the island, preferring Washington's traditional position of strategic ambiguity. Beijing, for its part, is still looking for ways to increase pressure on Taipei that stop well short of military force. Whether any of these conversations produce lasting agreements, or simply buy time until the next summit, is a question neither side has yet answered.

Photo: David Trinks / Unsplash
World leaders' delegations arrive ahead of a high-stakes US–China summit on September 24.
💰
3-figure
Tariff level on Chinese goods before Busan deal
Discuss
  • Why might artificial intelligence make trade negotiations between the US and China more difficult?
  • What does 'strategic ambiguity' over Taiwan mean, and why do governments use it as a policy tool?
World

Trump threatens to annihilate Iran at UN

Eleven minutes into a 40-minute UN General Assembly address, Donald Trump posed a stark choice: strike a deal with Iran, or "annihilate the Islamic Republic quickly." Diplomats sat in silence. The threat landed inside a hall built specifically to prevent such wars. Analysts noted it surpassed even Nikita Khrushchev's infamous 1960 shoe-banging episode in raw shock value.…
  • Should world leaders be allowed to make military threats inside the UN?
Both sides are likely to want a continuation of the current arrangement, and while there may be some tweaking on the side, the new deal will probably be similar to the old one.
The Conversation, Analysis
World

US and Iran Hold Rare Talks at UN

Hours of indirect diplomacy unfolded Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, as American and Iranian delegations negotiated through shuttling mediators — though both sides told strikingly different stories about what actually happened. US special envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed only indirect contact. President Donald Trump, however, told reporters that Witkoff and Jared Kushner had sat with Iranian officials for three hours in a "very productive" meeting — a claim the White House later scrambled to clarify. From Tehran, state media confirmed that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Witkoff directly, at Washington's request. Iran's stated conditions were sweeping: lift the US naval blockade, unfreeze Iranian assets, and end military pressure on what Tehran calls the "resistance" fronts.…
  • Did Iran or the US have more to gain from meeting at the UN?
AMERICAS · World
Trump says he is banning CNN and Politico from White House
ASIA · World
US-China rivalry is reshaping global trade — and Europe is caught in the middle.
AFRICA · World
20 countries propose global oversight body to manage AI dangers
EUROPE · World
Zelensky says Ukraine is ready for an energy ceasefire with Russia
theSIGNAL IN THE LAB
IVOCABULARY
strategic ambiguityexport controls
rare earthsshuttling mediatorsstark choice
hammered outsidelines
IIGRAMMAR FOCUS
Modal verbs — deduction and speculation (must have, cannot have, might have)
Use 'must have' when you are almost certain something happened based on evidence, 'cannot have' when you are almost certain something did not happen, and 'might have' when you think something possibly happened but you are not sure.
must have · cannot have · might have · known · surprised · expected · confirmed
  1. Trump the diplomats in the General Assembly hall when he threatened to annihilate Iran so bluntly.
  2. The White House anticipated that Trump's claim about a direct meeting would need clarifying so quickly.
  3. Beijing been pleased to hear that AI is now treated as a national security issue by both governments.
  4. Iran's conditions were so sweeping that Witkoff agreed to all of them during the three-hour talks.
  5. The negotiators discussed the structure of the Board of Trade privately before the summit, given how poorly defined it remains.
  6. Trump been aware that he was misstating the number of years Iran's government has been in power.
IIIIDIOMS
Define each idiom in your own words. Then write one sentence of your own using the idiom.
  1. on the table (AI is now 'on the table' in US-China talks)
  2. hammered out (the Busan trade pact was 'hammered out' last year)
  3. in the room (Taiwan will be 'in the room' without being on the agenda)
  4. buy time (summits that simply 'buy time')
  5. a stark choice (Trump posed 'a stark choice')
IVCRITICAL THINKING
Trump made a verifiable factual error about Iran in a UN speech, yet the diplomatic talks that followed the same day were described as productive. Does it matter whether a leader is factually accurate if the underlying diplomatic outcome is positive? Who should be responsible for correcting world leaders when they misspeak on an international stage?
VCREATIVE · HEADLINES
Write a headline for the Trump–Xi summit story in each of the following styles. One line each, no explanation:
  • TABLOID NEWSPAPER
  • LUXURY MAGAZINE
  • ACTIVIST BLOG
VIWRITING
Both the US-China summit and the US-Iran talks involved carefully managed indirect communication — through mediators, ambiguous agendas, or unverified claims. Write a short argument either defending or criticising the use of deliberate vagueness as a diplomatic tool, using evidence from these articles.
VIIDEGREES OF EXTREMITY
Complete each ladder from mild to strong using words and phrases from the articles.
  • discussed
  • concerned about
  • mentioned
  • talked
  • changed
  • unclear
VIIISPEAKING
  1. Could Trump's factual errors at the UN damage American credibility permanently?
  2. Should mediators ever be trusted to relay sensitive diplomatic messages accurately?
  3. Which matters more in diplomacy: what leaders say or what they sign?
  4. Can informal sideline talks ever achieve more than formal summit agreements?