There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 in service of a Cold War strategy to gain advantage over the Soviet Union.
America appears to be shifting again now toward an amoral foreign policy direction under President Donald Trump. Trump has suggested, for example, that the United States should assert control over Panama, Greenland, and Canada. He also has argued that he must end the war in Ukraine, and normalize relations with Russia, even if doing so requires naked capitulation to Putin’s desires. Previously, when the United States exempted itself from principles and commitments, it did so for clearly defined objectives. What makes this moment unique, however, is that Trump’s motives are somewhat murky.
For example, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explained that Trump’s focus on securing a ceasefire in Ukraine and normalizing relations with Russia is driven by a desire to execute a “reverse Kissinger,” in other words, pull Russia closer to the United States to isolate and weaken China. Somewhat differently, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth has signaled that the United States needs to wind down conflict in Ukraine to shift resources away from Europe to focus on Asia. Still others in the United States have advocated for dispensing with Ukraine to get on to the business of building a new global architecture around the concept of spheres of influence, whereby strong powers such as China, Russia, and the United States dictate the destinies of smaller powers along their peripheries. According to this logic, Russia would be allowed to rebuild a sphere of influence along its European periphery, the United States would reassert its sphere of influence in Latin America, and America presumably would tolerate China asserting control over its periphery. And yet other Americans have argued that Trump’s desire to end wars abroad is animated by an instinct to focus more on problems at home, a goal that is shared by a solid majority of the American public.
Then there is the question of Trump’s ambition to expand America’s boundaries. Trump’s supporters argue that this desire for expansion is ingrained in the American spirit. According to this logic, Trump needs to grow America to help diffuse societal divisions at home and give purpose and progress to the American people. Trump’s opponents argue that the president’s covetousness over other countries’ territories reflects ignorance, hubris, and a clumsy attempt at legacy-building.
The key point of this review is to highlight that there is no unified theory for explaining the Trump administration’s statements or actions. Neither Trump nor his advisors can come up with a coherent explanation that ties Trump’s impulses into any semblance of a grand strategy. In fact, the Trump administration is comprised of a set of senior officials with divergent viewpoints on global affairs. Some advocate for America to rebuild primacy as a unipolar power. Others believe the United States must use its finite resources to prioritize protecting its interests in Asia. Yet others urge greater restraint in the exercise of American power abroad. There also are traditional business types who advocate for Trump to focus on getting better deals for American companies and workers.
Trump sits above his advisors as an arbiter between competing camps. Some days Trump will side with those arguing for prioritizing Asia. Other days he will be swayed by the need to restrain the use of American power abroad. Trump himself is not rigid or ideological. He is opportunistic and improvisational.
For Taiwan, this means there will not be any moment of clarity when clouds part and Trump’s designs for the future of Asia come into focus. In fact, Trump and his advisors will seek to keep Taiwan off-balance and uncomfortable as part of their effort to urge Taiwan to take on a greater burden for its own security. There are no appeals to ideological alignment or shared values that will sway Trump to support Taiwan. The most powerful argument to Trump is that his ambitions for reindustrializing America are not achievable without the critical inputs that Taiwan’s leading companies provide. On the flip side, Taiwan’s security also hinges on a strong relationship with the United States. This creates a dual dependency that both sides must manage for mutual self-interest.
Trump is not a security hawk on China. He has pledged to the American people that he will stand firm on China, but also that he will make deals with Xi Jinping (習近平) and keep America out of war. Trump will look unfavorably on any uptick in cross-Strait tensions that he perceives as being triggered by Taipei. This creates a strong incentive for President William Lai (賴清德) to be a steady steward of cross-Strait relations and to deprive Beijing of any excuses for escalating tensions. Lai cannot halt Beijing’s growing military and grey zone pressure, but he can work to persuade the world that such bullying is not being provoked by actions or statements emanating from Taipei.
During this moment of flux, perhaps the most important work Taiwan’s leaders can undertake is at home. They need to find points of convergence between competing political parties. Taiwan’s divided political system means that no party will get all of what it wants. The leading political parties face a choice between compromise and failure. If they fail to compromise on how much and how urgent of a threat China poses, as well as on critical questions around defense spending, energy security, economic resilience, and the proper level of government funding to meet societal and security needs, the only party that would gain would be Beijing. Beijing benefits from political division and dysfunction inside Taiwan. The people of Taiwan do not.
America’s diplomatic shift shrinks Taiwan’s margin for error. Taiwan’s leaders have agency, though. Here’s to hoping Taiwan’s political leaders harness external turbulence to focus even more on finding compromises to serve Taiwan’s long-term interests.
Ryan Hass is a senior fellow, the Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies, and the Director of the China Center at the Brookings Institution.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
RSS