A New EdgeTheory Assessment on how foreign state, state-aligned, and other influential actors characterized the Trump–Xi summit, the narratives used to interpret its outcomes, and differences between foreign-facing and Chinese domestic messaging.

The Trump–Xi summit generated competing foreign narratives about its significance for U.S.–China relations and the broader international order. This brief examines how foreign state, state-aligned, and other influential actors characterized the summit, the narratives used to interpret its outcomes, and differences between foreign-facing and Chinese domestic messaging. Analysis also considers which themes generated the strongest emotional and narrative response to identify how the summit was leveraged beyond its immediate diplomatic outcomes.

What You'll Learn

• China-aligned actors moved beyond arguing that tariffs, sanctions, and technology restrictions failed to weaken Beijing. They claimed these measures accelerated Chinese self-reliance in manufacturing, technology, supply chains, and critical minerals.
• China-aligned actors connected the meeting to BRICS and Global South narratives depicting Western predominance as eroding. In this framing, the summit’s importance lies less in individual agreements than in its symbolic value: Washington engaging Beijing as a strategic peer becomes evidence for a wider transition toward distributed global power.
• Fear dominated the summit’s emotional profile and peaked alongside heightened discussion of trade, Taiwan, and the risk of war on September 24, indicating that engagement was strongest when the summit was framed around its implications for future economic and security competition rather than diplomacy itself.
• The key narrative shift is therefore from “China is stronger” to “U.S. policy helped make China stronger.”
• Chinese official messaging directed toward domestic audiences emphasized specific deliverables and material benefits rather than the broader power-transition narratives prevalent among China-aligned foreign actors.

The Trump–Xi summit became a contested symbol of the evolving U.S.–China relationship. Taken together, the narratives suggest that the summit’s information significance derived less from what was agreed than from competing efforts to define what renewed U.S.–China engagement signifies about power, leverage, and the future international order.

Download the report

A New EdgeTheory Assessment on how Iranian-, Russian-, and other aligned actors are using attacks on energy infrastructure and commercial shipping across the Gulf and Red Sea to shape perceptions of U.S. power and policy.

Attacks on energy infrastructure and commercial shipping across the Gulf and Red Sea are creating both physical disruption and an increasingly contested information environment. This assessment employed EdgeTheory's EdgeWatch and EdgeRunner workflows to establish the ground truth of reported infrastructure attacks in the Gulf and Red Sea region, assess the narratives surrounding their economic and geopolitical implications, and identify emerging actors and networks advancing potentially misleading or malign narratives against the United States.

What You'll Learn

• Attacks on Gulf and Red Sea energy infrastructure and commercial shipping have escalated, but reporting frequently overstates their scale and certainty.
• The primary information vulnerability is the gap between verified attack effects and unresolved attribution.
• The strongest malign narrative is not simply that the United States is weak, but that it is simultaneously responsible for the crisis and incapable of controlling it.
• Economic narratives provide the clearest bridge between a distant regional conflict and U.S. domestic audiences.
• Cross-network amplification broadens the narrative beyond Iranian information channels.

The information impact of the Gulf infrastructure attacks is being driven less by wholesale fabrication than by the strategic exploitation of real but incompletely understood events. The resulting narratives are particularly effective because contradictory developments can reinforce the same broader message: U.S. escalation is portrayed as causing instability, while U.S. restraint is portrayed as evidence of weakness.

Download the report

A new EdgeTheory narrative intelligence brief on how Russia, Iran, and other U.S. adversaries reframe 9/11 to attack American credibility today.

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, 9/11 remains an active part of the information environment — not just a historical anniversary. Russian-, Iranian-, and other adversary-aligned voices continue to reinterpret the attacks and the subsequent War on Terror to advance narratives about U.S. interventionism, hypocrisy, intelligence failures, and declining global power. These narratives connect the legacy of 9/11 to today's headlines: Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, terrorism designations, sanctions, and ongoing U.S. military activity.

EdgeTheory's latest narrative intelligence brief breaks down how adversaries are talking about 9/11 in 2026, the key themes shaping that messaging, and what it means for narrative intelligence and open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysts tracking how historical events get repurposed for contemporary influence operations.

What You'll Learn

• How the War on Terror is recast as a pretext for militarism — how Russian- and Iranian-aligned voices connect 9/11 to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran to argue Washington used counterterrorism to justify military expansion and regime change.
• How adversaries erode U.S. credibility on counterterrorism — the "hypocrisy" narrative that contrasts the post-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda with current U.S. relationships and terrorism designations, including real examples with engagement data.
• Why 9/11 conspiracy narratives persist 25 years later — how claims questioning the official 9/11 account are still used to seed broader distrust in U.S. intelligence assessments and institutions.
• How different adversaries use 9/11 differently — the distinct approaches taken by Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean messaging, from claims of American decline to justifying nuclear deterrence.
• What this means for narrative intelligence and OSINT — why analysts need to track how historical narratives migrate across actors, platforms, and conflicts, including how this connects to HPSCI's 25-year review of U.S. intelligence capabilities.

Twenty-five years later, 9/11 illustrates why historical narratives should be treated as persistent indicators within the information environment — not isolated reactions to an anniversary. As adversaries continue to repackage existing grievances around current events, understanding how these narratives are built, migrate, and resurface is essential to staying ahead of the next reframing of American legitimacy.

Download the report