When President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet in Washington on Thursday, artificial intelligence will sit squarely at the center of a tense bilateral agenda, even as formal diplomatic channels remain heavily strained. Yet beneath the public posturing, an informal network of think tanks and universities is quietly keeping communication lines alive through what diplomacy specialists call Track Two talks.
Friction at the Formal Level
The diplomatic climate ahead of the Washington summit feels remarkably brittle. In the weeks leading up to the meeting, the Trump administration accused Chinese AI companies of intellectual property theft through a process known as model “distilling,” while dangling the threat of fresh economic sanctions. Beijing has pushed back aggressively against American export controls on advanced semiconductors, characterizing Washington’s policies as a throwback to a Cold War playbook designed to stifle China’s technological rise.
This deep-seated mistrust leaves little room for easy compromise at the official Track One level. Sarah Beran, a former U.S. diplomat who managed China policy on the National Security Council during the Biden administration, notes the extreme difficulty of the subject. “The fear of chokepoints, being held back, and AI being used as a cudgel on both sides means that this is also one of the most difficult areas to talk about,” Beran explained, emphasizing that AI is perhaps the single most vital topic for the two nations to address.
The Quiet Engine of Track Two Diplomacy
While official rhetoric stays sharp, a sprawling network of private conferences and academic exchanges is humming with activity. Organizations like the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations have spent decades facilitating these backdoor conversations. Dating back to the historic 1972 ping-pong diplomacy that thawed relations, the non-profit committee brings together experts who can speak candidly without the immediate pressure of crafting public policy.
Samm Sacks, an expert in Chinese tech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the think tank New America, participated in several substantive Track Two discussions in Beijing and Shanghai over the summer. “People can talk about sensitive issues more candidly and also don’t feel the need to come to any consensus that would become public,” Sacks noted. These closed-door sessions reveal that American and Chinese specialists share a striking degree of common ground regarding the vulnerabilities and severe risks tied to advanced AI systems.
Historical Precedents and Proven Back Channels
Informal dialogues have proven their weight before. When official military-to-military communications ground to a halt following then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, Track Two channels acted as the shock absorber. Beran recalled that diplomats floated ideas for resuming military communication lines during informal sessions before successfully translating those concepts into formal negotiations.
That groundwork ultimately enabled then-President Biden and Xi Jinping to restore military dialogues at a 2023 summit in Woodside, California. Similarly, retired Air Force General Jack Shanahan pointed out that years of quiet Track Two discussions on military AI helped pave the way for a subsequent leadership agreement ensuring that human beings—not autonomous algorithms—retain ultimate control over nuclear weapons decisions.
The Limits of Informal Diplomacy
Despite the utility of these back channels, experts caution that informal networks cannot completely bridge the structural gaps dividing Washington and Beijing. The United States remains primarily focused on cybersecurity vulnerabilities and preventing the loss of control over rapidly evolving models. China, meanwhile, places its highest priority on domestic regime stability and achieving total technological self-reliance.
Analysts observe that Track Two dialogues achieve their maximum impact only when political leadership actively takes up their policy recommendations. What mechanisms do you think are most essential to keep technological competition from spiraling out of control? Share your thoughts below.
Keep reading
