Since Donald Trump’s much anticipated dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping concluded on Saturday night, the ex–real-estate developer has portrayed a 90-day truce with Beijing as an “incredible deal” that could only have been secured by the dealmaker in chief himself. “It goes down, certainly—if it happens, it goes down as one of the largest deals ever made,” he boasted to reporters. Such a stark turn of events—from threatening to tax every single Chinese import to agreeing to a supposedly magnificent trade deal—would of course be extremely welcome news to the various U.S. parties that have been negatively affected by the president’s trade war, including farmers who’ve required a $12 billion bailout, factories that have been forced to lay off employees, and companies that have had to shift production overseas rather than pass increased costs onto consumers. And, to be sure, the fact that the dinner didn’t conclude with trade adviser Peter Navarro spitting in Xi’s face or flipping over a table and yelling “prostitution whore!” is cause for relief.

Unfortunately, the notion that Trump struck some kind of “incredible” trade deal does not appear to exist outside the president’s head. In reality, the two sides simply agreed to not impose any further tariffs for 90 days, and resume them if further talks don’t yield a breakthrough—a fact that even Trump’s own White House has acknowledged. In a statement, the administration said Beijing has agreed to purchase “a not yet agreed upon, but very substantial” amount of U.S. agricultural, energy, industrial, and other products in order “to reduce the trade imbalance between our two countries.” It did nothing to back up the president’s claims that China is calling off any tariffs, saying only that there is a temporary agreement not to raise them further, which is a very, very different thing. In addition, the White House gave little to no indication of China “opening up” its markets, as Trump has claimed. “The results of the discussions in Buenos Aires are positive, but contrary to President Trump’s enthusiastic comments, did not result in a breakthrough,” David Adelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Singapore and adjunct professor at the New York University, told CNBC. Or as Mintaro Oba, a former U.S. State Department official, put it: the president’s comments “show his No. 1 priority is the appearance of being a great dealmaker. It doesn’t matter to him what the details are, as long as he looks strong to his supporters.”

While China’s state media also described the dinner as being successful, much of the Chinese press said nothing about Beijing making concessions on technology transfer, nor did the state media mention the White House’s claim that “Xi . . . stated that he is open to approving the previously unapproved Qualcomm-NXP deal should it again be presented to him,” which would be a coup for the U.S.

That both sides were invested in ensuring the dinner wasn’t a total disaster—to the point that a source familiar with proceedings told Politico that it “lasted at least an hour longer than scheduled, with the delegations breaking into applause and posing for photos with each other”—makes sense. After all, a calm global market benefits both Washington and Beijing. And in a certain world, the daylight between what actually occurred, and what Xi and Trump want people to think occurred might not be too much of an issue. Unfortunately, we’re living in a world in which the president of the United States regularly swallows his own propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, and is prone to lashing out when he thinks he’s been screwed. Though the meeting not devolving into a brawl is certainly a plus, Trump seemingly believes that his “deal” for a 90-day truce was a massive win, and that he’ll get what he wants out of China eventually. If that doesn’t happen—and there’s a good chance it won’t, given Beijing’s post-summit comments—President Art of the Deal is liable to act out even worse, particularly if advisers like Peter “Death by China” Navarro are still whispering in his ear.