President Donald Trump has reignited debate in global diplomacy by reviving the “G2” concept — a term suggesting a bilateral power balance between the United States and China. The phrase, long rejected by Washington, carries deep historical and geopolitical weight, stirring both optimism in Beijing and anxiety among America’s allies.
Moments before his October 30 summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea, Trump posted on Truth Social:
“The G2 WILL BE CONVENING SHORTLY!”
The remark — brief yet symbolically charged — has been interpreted as a signal of Trump’s desire to redefine the U.S.–China relationship.
A Concept with Heavy History
The term “G2” (Group of Two) was introduced in 2005 by economist C. Fred Bergsten, who argued that cooperation between the world’s two largest economies was essential. However, the idea implies strategic parity between Washington and Beijing, something the U.S. has traditionally resisted.
Neil Thomas, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted:
“The G2 concept implies that China and the United States are peers on the global stage and their positions should be given equal weight.”
Such implications have unsettled U.S. allies — particularly Japan, Australia, and India — who fear being sidelined by a potential U.S.–China power condominium.
China’s Historical Sensitivities
For Beijing, the G2 carries symbolic validation. Since the early 20th century, Chinese leaders have viewed Western containment efforts as attempts to suppress their rise. Today, policies such as the Belt and Road Initiative are seen as countermeasures to that perceived containment.
Thus, Trump’s casual invocation of “G2” has been interpreted by some Chinese commentators as a recognition of China’s equal status with the United States.
One popular Chinese nationalist blogger, Housha Yueguang, wrote:
“Trump’s G2 means the U.S. has accepted that it no longer holds the unipolar position and now seeks a bipolar world with China. Europe, Japan, and India become secondary.”
Beijing’s Foreign Ministry, while cautious, welcomed the tone. Spokesperson Guo Jiakun stated that the two nations “can jointly shoulder our responsibilities as major countries,” while emphasizing “true multilateralism” and a “multipolar world order.”
Allies Express Unease
Former Biden administration official Mira Rapp-Hooper warned that Trump’s use of the term would “provoke significant anxiety in allied capitals”, raising concerns about potential U.S.–China deals that could undercut partners.
She explained that the Obama administration briefly explored the G2 framework, but abandoned it after realizing it alienated regional allies.
“It’s a term that plays very poorly in countries like Japan, Australia, and India,” she said.
Kurt Campbell, who served as Deputy Secretary of State under Biden, echoed that view:
“There were real anxieties in Asia about how China used the G2 idea to make other nations feel insecure. It has been powerfully delegitimized.”
Bergsten’s Original Vision
Economist C. Fred Bergsten, who first coined the term, welcomed its revival but cautioned against misinterpretation.
“It was never meant to suggest the U.S. and China would dictate to the rest of the world,” he said. “It simply meant the two major powers must coordinate on global economic issues.”
Still, Trump’s enthusiasm for the G2 label — echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after his own talks with Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun — suggests that Washington may be reconsidering its strategic vocabulary as it faces a more assertive Beijing.
The Bottom Line
The return of G2 rhetoric underscores the tension between cooperation and competition defining the 21st-century U.S.–China dynamic.
For Beijing, it is a symbolic victory. For America’s allies, it is a warning shot.
And for Trump, it is another bold declaration that could reshape the language — and perhaps the balance — of global power.
