Neither superpower thinks women belong in the room where great power politics happens
When the leaders of the world's two largest economies sat down together in Beijing, the photograph they left behind carried a meaning no press release could undo: not a single woman at the negotiating table, on either side. Critics and scholars noted this was not an accident of scheduling but a reflection of deliberate choices about what power looks like and who is trusted to wield it. In an era when both nations claim to value merit and modernity, the image raised an older, quieter question — about whether the rooms where the future is decided will be built to include everyone, or only those who have always been invited.
- A single photograph from Beijing's Great Hall of the People ignited a global conversation — two delegations, two superpowers, and not one woman at the table where decisions were made.
- Economists and gender scholars moved quickly to name what the image revealed: a joint signal, sent simultaneously by Washington and Beijing, that women's voices are not considered essential to shaping the global order.
- The absence was made more pointed by who was present — women like Lara Trump, Jane Fraser, and Dina Powell McCormick traveled to Beijing but were kept from the negotiating table, welcomed into the theater of diplomacy but not its substance.
- Experts argue this was not a failure of supply but of will — both countries have highly qualified women in their diplomatic and security establishments, making the all-male composition a choice, not a coincidence.
- The moment is now being measured against the Obama era, when women like Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Liu Yandong held prominent seats at comparable summits, underscoring how much ground has quietly been lost.
The photograph from Thursday's Trump-Xi bilateral meeting in Beijing told its story through what it lacked. Behind the ceremonial soldiers and formal rows of officials, two men sat at the negotiating table — and only men. No women from the American side, none from the Chinese. The absence was so complete it became the headline.
Gita Gopinath, an economics professor at Harvard, captured the mood in a single phrase: a painting of the end of meritocracy. Her observation spread rapidly online, accumulating more than 22,000 likes. When pressed to elaborate, she pointed to the gap between who you know and what you can do — and how, at the highest levels of power, the former still tends to win.
Halima Kazem of Stanford drew a sharper contrast. During the Obama years, Liu Yandong sat across from Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton at comparable summits. That precedent has now been abandoned by both sides at once. This wasn't one country's failure, Kazem argued — it was a joint performance of a particular kind of authority: masculine, militarized, and deliberately exclusionary. When both superpowers define serious diplomacy this way, they are together deciding who gets left out of the global order.
The irony was not lost on observers that women did travel to Beijing — Lara Trump, Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser, and Meta's Dina Powell McCormick among them. They were present in the entourage, visible in the broader delegation, but absent from the table where the actual negotiating took place. The distinction carried its own message: women could attend the theater of diplomacy, but when the two largest economies sat down to discuss their future, the room closed around them.
The photograph from Thursday's bilateral meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at Beijing's Great Hall of the People told a story in its composition. Behind the ceremonial soldiers and flag-waving children, past the rows of senior officials and American business executives arrayed in formal dress, sat two men at the negotiating table. Only men. No women from the American delegation. No women from the Chinese side. The absence was so complete, so visually stark, that it became the story itself.
Gita Gopinath, an economics professor at Harvard, distilled the moment into a single sentence that resonated across social media: a painting of the end of meritocracy, she called it. A meeting of the world's two largest economies, and not one woman at the table. Her tweet accumulated more than 22,000 likes overnight. When the Guardian asked her to elaborate, Gopinath explained what the image suggested about how power actually gets distributed. We have somehow drifted back, she said, to the belief that what matters is who you know, not what you can do. That distinction—between network and capability—determines whether you get a seat when the stakes are highest.
Halima Kazem, who directs Stanford University's program in feminist, gender and sexuality studies, saw something more deliberate in the composition. She compared the photograph to bilateral meetings from the Obama years, when Liu Yandong, China's vice-premier, sat across from Susan Rice, the American national security adviser, and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state. We've gone backward, Kazem said. Neither superpower now believes women belong in the room where great power politics unfolds. This wasn't a bilateral failure on one side—it was a joint signal, sent by both countries simultaneously, that women's voices don't matter in shaping the global order.
Kazem pushed the analysis further. The absence of women wasn't about a shortage of qualified candidates. Both the United States and China have plenty of talented women in their diplomatic and security establishments. What happened on Thursday was a choice. It was a deliberate statement about what kind of authority to project: masculine, militarized, exclusionary. When both superpowers perform power this way, she argued, they're jointly defining what serious diplomacy looks like and who gets left out of it.
Yet women did travel to Beijing with Trump. Lara Trump, his daughter-in-law, accompanied him. Jane Fraser, the chief executive of Citigroup, was there. Dina Powell McCormick, the president of Meta, made the trip. They were present in the delegation, visible in the broader entourage, but absent from the table where decisions were being made. The distinction mattered. It suggested that women could be brought along, could participate in the theater of diplomacy, but when the actual negotiating began—when the two largest economies sat down to discuss their relationship—the room emptied of women. The message, whether intentional or not, was clear about whose voices would shape what came next.
Citas Notables
A painting of the end of meritocracy: A meeting of the two largest economies and not one woman at the table.— Gita Gopinath, Harvard economics professor
This wasn't about lack of qualified women—both countries have plenty in their diplomatic and security establishments. This was a choice about what kind of authority to project: masculine, militarized, and exclusionary.— Halima Kazem, Stanford University
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a photograph from a single meeting matter this much? Isn't this just one bilateral?
Because it's not really about one meeting. It's about what both countries are saying together about who gets to be in the room when power is being negotiated. When it happens once, you can call it an oversight. When both superpowers do it simultaneously, it's a statement.
But the source says women did travel with Trump. Jane Fraser was there. Doesn't that complicate the narrative?
It does, and that's the point. They were allowed to come along, to be part of the delegation, but not to sit at the table. There's a difference between being present and being heard. It suggests women can participate in the theater but not in the actual negotiation.
Some might argue this is just how these meetings have always been structured. Why is this moment different?
Because it's a reversal. Obama-era summits included women at the negotiating table—Liu Yandong, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton. This is a step backward from that. It's not tradition; it's a choice to exclude.
What's the real concern underneath the criticism?
That when both superpowers jointly decide women don't belong in the room where global order gets shaped, they're defining what serious diplomacy looks like for everyone else. They're saying: this is what power looks like. And women aren't in it.
Is this about representation, or is it about actual decision-making power?
Both. But representation matters because it signals who gets heard. If women aren't at the table, their perspectives on trade, security, technology—whatever's being negotiated—don't shape the outcome. It's not just symbolic; it has real consequences.