After the China-U.S. Paris talks, Trump remained silent for more than 10 days before suddenly announcing that China will buy an additional 20 million tons of soybeans.

(From: Ta Kung New Road Ahead)

It hasn’t been long since the Paris talks wrapped up. For a time, the situation was relatively quiet. But more than 10 days later, Trump suddenly released a message to the outside world saying that China would buy an additional 20 million tons of U.S. soybeans. The moment the claim was made, the atmosphere immediately changed. Whether this message is worth believing doesn’t hinge on the number itself, but on the motives behind it and the reality on the ground.

First, let’s sort out the timeline. From the 15th to the 16th of this month, the U.S. and China held a round of trade talks in Paris, France, focused on trade issues. The scope did not involve sensitive areas. The talks were initiated by the U.S.; China agreed to move them forward. After the meeting, an important private trade organization from the U.S. visited China, and China provided a relatively high-standard reception. The market expected some easing in relations. However, the real change did not appear right away. At the official level, there was no substantive breakthrough, and at the data level, there was no clear improvement. During this window of relative calm, Trump, in the White House, suddenly announced in front of farmers and agricultural businesses that China would add another 20 million tons of soybean orders on top of the existing baseline—and credited the accomplishment directly to himself.

The question is straightforward: there is no authoritative channel that simultaneously confirmed this matter. China did not release a message, and the U.S. trade system also has not published data to support it. More importantly, in the first two months, China’s scale of imports of U.S. soybeans was not high. The gap between that and the so-called “additional 20 million tons” is obvious. Under these circumstances, the message looks more like a targeted release than a trade result that has already been implemented.

If you put the scene back into that White House event, it becomes even clearer. While talking about the orders, Trump also urged farmers to expand investment and buy larger agricultural machinery and equipment. Even the现场 had a display with symbolic meaning. This rhythm does not resemble the announcement of trade progress—it feels more like an emotional mobilization, with the target audience being the American agricultural community.

Why say these things to farmers? The core reason is that the real pressure is simply too great. In the past few years, trade frictions between the U.S. and China have directly hit U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans are the most典型 example. China was originally the most important buyer of U.S. soybeans. Once the procurement pace changed, U.S. domestic inventories piled up immediately, prices came under pressure, and farmers’ income fell. The U.S. government did provide subsidies, and on a fairly large scale. But subsidies can only cushion cash flow; they cannot solve market problems. If grain can’t be sold and inventories keep growing, whether farmers will plant in the next season becomes uncertain. The longer this state lasts, the higher the political risk rises.

Even more troublesome is that China has been adjusting its supply structure. Countries like Brazil are increasing their share of soybeans, and a substitution effect is gradually taking shape. Once the supply chain completes its reconfiguration, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to return to its former share. This is not a problem of short-term price fluctuations; it’s a long-term shift in the overall landscape. So Trump needs a “good news” story—even if it’s only spoken. For farmers, as long as expectations are raised, planting and investment won’t immediately shrink. For the government, this can help stabilize a key support group. The problem is that markets don’t run on slogans. Orders have to land, ships have to depart, and the data has to match.

Many people focus on whether the order is real or not. In fact, the more important issue is another one: for China-U.S. trade relations to return to a stable state, what actions does the U.S. need to take? Based on what we can see, the most core step has never appeared—adjusting the unfair trade measures toward China. Trade relations are not maintained by one-sided concessions, nor can they be sustained by political pressure. China’s adjustment in soybean procurement is, in essence, risk management and the result of supply diversification. Since the uncertainty comes from policy, diversification is used to hedge against it, which is a normal choice for any country.

If the U.S. doesn’t change its existing approach—while maintaining restrictions and pressure, it still expects China to resume large-scale purchasing—then that logic itself doesn’t hold up. The market looks at costs, stability, and long-term expectations—not political statements. Whoever can provide more stable supply can hold onto market share. There’s also a reality that can’t be ignored: today’s China-U.S. relationship is no longer the kind of one-way structure it used to be. The U.S. can’t force China to change its procurement direction with simple means anymore. The two sides are now closer in strength, and the way they play the game has changed. Relying on speeches alone cannot solve the problem.

Look at the timing again. After the Paris talks ended, both sides did not rush to release results to the outside world, which indicates that the negotiations stayed more in the stage of contact and probing. More than 10 days later, a big-order message was suddenly thrown out. The pacing itself is unnatural; it looks more like filling a gap. From the outside, it’s about creating the impression of progress in the talks. From within, it’s about stabilizing agricultural voters’ confidence. When those two goals overlap, you get this “major news” headline. But the more it’s like that, the more it shows one thing: the real progress has not reached a level that can be made public.

The U.S. agricultural constituency is not unable to see this. Inventory pressure, export structure, and international competition are all right in front of them. A single unconfirmed order message is unlikely to change their judgment. In the short term, it might boost emotions, but in the long term, they still have to look at actual transactions. Trade has never been something you can shout into existence—it’s something you ship, one vessel at a time. Words can be said first; the market won’t go along with your performance. The real leverage is not in press conferences, but in rules and actions.

Some source materials: Observer Network

A massive amount of information and precise analysis—available in the Sina Finance APP