US President Joe Biden told PBS that the relationship between Washington and Beijing has not been seriously harmed by the balloon episode. The remarks were reported by DEA News and have sparked discussion about how the two powers manage their dynamic in public diplomacy, intelligence circles, and real-world tensions.
During the interview, the host pressed Biden to share his perspective on the incident and the broader trajectory of US policy toward China. Biden answered in a composed, explanatory manner, detailing the sequence of conversations at the highest levels and the involvement of key members of his administration who shape foreign policy and national security decisions.
He stressed that he had already spoken with President Xi Jinping and had ongoing consultations with the American team responsible for coordinating strategy toward China. The president noted that these discussions occurred well before the balloon dispute escalated, underscoring the importance of continuous dialogue even in times of disagreement.
In his words, Biden conveyed a clear principle to Xi Jinping: the United States intends to compete vigorously with China where interests diverge, but it does not seek confrontation. This framing reflects a longstanding approach aimed at safeguarding American security and economic interests while avoiding unnecessary escalation that could destabilize global markets or regional security frameworks.
The incident in early February involved a Chinese balloon that hovered over American airspace for several days, prompting a swift military response. The Pentagon described the device as a surveillance platform, while Beijing insisted it was a civilian research balloon that had inadvertently drifted off course. The discrepancy in characterizations highlighted the deep political sensitivities surrounding airspace sovereignty, dual-use technology, and information gathering in the modern era.
Following the shootdown, White House officials reiterated that the wreckage would not be returned to China, citing national security and investigatory considerations. This decision has fueled ongoing debate about transparency, verification, and the management of future incidents that could impact the already fragile channels of communication between the two nations.