A frequently voiced concern within the international community was that if US President Donald Trump returned to the White House, he might seek a grand bargain with Beijing — treating Taiwan as a transactional asset in exchange for economic gains.
That fear has been reignited by Trump’s trip to the Middle East this week, where his meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and announcement to lift US sanctions on Syria have once again confirmed to the world that his foreign policy is unapologetically transactional.
The pattern is familiar — Trump has consistently favored economic interests over traditional strategic alliances. He abandoned the Kurds in Syria, questioned the value of NATO, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator, referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) as a good friend and frequently praised authoritarian leaders. In this framework, Taiwan appears vulnerable: a small island, expensive to defend and seemingly remote from the daily concerns of the average American voter.
This narrative misses a fundamental distinction. While Trump might be transactional, he is also a patriot — and more than that, a US supremacist. China is not like Syria, Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia. Rather, it is the only nation that can credibly challenge the US’ global supremacy. For Trump, who frames the world in terms of power and dominance, that makes all the difference.
Trump might see the Saudi Arabians as buyers, but China he sees as a rival for today and tomorrow — a threat that if left unchecked, could one day eclipse the US.
China is not a partner to be wooed, but a force to be checked. That is why the idea of “trading away” Taiwan misunderstands Trump’s instincts and ambitions.
This logic is not lost on Beijing either. If Trump were truly capable of selling Taiwan without batting an eye, as some in Taiwan’s US-skeptic camp like to suggest, then one has to ask: Why has Xi not made an offer Trump cannot refuse?
Even Beijing likely understands that Trump’s transactionalism has limits — and China is that limit. To let China win is to let the US lose.
Yet, Taiwan is not short of skeptics. In local discourse, “US skepticism theorists” never miss a beat. Whenever Trump makes an economic deal that appears to sacrifice values — or simply utters a word like “unification” — they predict betrayal.
This reaction is driven neither by fear nor facts. It is often the product of a “surrenderist” mindset, propagated by those who have effectively become the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpieces in Taiwan. These US skepticism theorists frame every shift in US policy as betrayal. They do not seek solutions — they sow doubt, as keenly as sharks scent blood.
As a strategic objective, the US might tolerate China as a global power — but never as a superpower. Selling out Taiwan would abandon that objective, symbolically and materially.
Trump wants to be seen as the president who dares to do what others feared. If past administrations appeared cautious on China, Trump would want to appear bold. If others worry about war, Trump would boast about peace through strength. That logic, paradoxically, might make him more forceful on Taiwan — not to defend democracy, but to assert dominance.
This does not mean that Taiwan is safe. If anything, it means it must double down — strengthening the country in every dimension, from civil resilience to national defense.
Trump might still rattle Taiwan with erratic signals, but the idea that he would simply hand it over to Beijing underestimates his ego and instincts.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong currently residing in Taiwan.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS