A recent poll showing that half of the Taiwanese respondents fear Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) becoming “US-SMC” reflects a profound anxiety about technological sovereignty that transcends traditional geopolitical frameworks. Yet this binary concern obscures a more nuanced reality about the semiconductor industry’s evolution and Taiwan’s strategic position in an increasingly multipolar technological landscape.
Taiwan’s worry about TSMC’s Americanization reveals an interesting paradox: The very success that makes TSMC globally indispensable also makes it vulnerable to external pressures.
With TSMC controlling 64 percent of the global contract chipmaking market and Taiwan producing 63.8 percent of the world’s semiconductors, the nation has achieved unprecedented technological leverage.
However, this dominance has created what economists call “too big to fail” syndrome, where success becomes a strategic liability.
The fear of TSMC becoming “US-SMC” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of modern semiconductor manufacturing. Despite its Arizona expansion reaching full capacity utilization and plans for six additional fabs from a US$165 billion investment, TSMC’s core technological DNA remains irreversibly Taiwanese.
The company’s most advanced N2 node research, critical intellectual property development and top engineering talent continue to reside in Taiwan. What Taiwan is witnessing is not corporate emigration, but technological diplomacy.
Rather than viewing TSMC’s global expansion through the lens of zero-sum national competition, Taiwan should embrace what could be termed “distributed excellence” — a strategy that leverages geographical diversification to enhance rather than diminish Taiwan’s technological centrality. The Arizona operations, producing chips for Apple, AMD, Qualcomm, Broadcom and Nvidia, represent TSMC’s response to commercial realities rather than political pressures. US tech giants account for the majority of TSMC’s revenue, making US manufacturing logical and inevitable.
This expansion strengthens Taiwan’s position in three main ways. First, it reduces the geopolitical risk premium associated with Taiwan-only production, making TSMC a more stable partner for global customers.
Second, it creates institutional interdependence that makes any disruption to Taiwan’s operations catastrophic for the US.
Third, it positions Taiwan as an innovation hub of a global network rather than a vulnerable single point of failure.
Yin Nai-ping (殷乃平), a professor of finance at National Chengchi University, correctly identifies TSMC as Taiwan’s key geopolitical asset, but incorrectly frames its value in terms of exclusivity.
Taiwan’s strategic importance comes not from monopolizing TSMC’s production, but from controlling its technological evolution. As long as Taiwan remains the epicenter of semiconductor innovation — developing next-generation processes, training elite engineers, and housing advanced research and development — the nation would maintain its indispensable role regardless of where manufacturing occurs.
Consider the parallel with Switzerland’s pharmaceutical industry: Swiss companies manufacture globally, yet Switzerland remains the undisputed center of pharmaceutical innovation because it controls the intellectual capital. Taiwan can adopt a similar model, evolving from a manufacturing fortress to an innovation empire.
Taiwan’s semiconductor success story was built on globalization, not isolation. TSMC’s founders understood that serving global markets required global thinking. Today’s expansion into Arizona, with additional facilities planned for Europe and potentially other regions, represents the natural evolution of this philosophy. The alternative — maintaining Taiwan-only production amid rising geopolitical tensions — would be strategically suicidal.
The real threat to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is not TSMC’s international expansion, but the nation’s potential insularity. Countries across the world are investing hundreds of billions of US dollars in semiconductor capabilities: the US CHIPS Act has catalyzed US$450 billion in private investment, Europe has committed more than US$103 billion, and South Korea plans US$470 billion through 2047.
In this environment, Taiwan’s choice is clear: Lead the globalization of semiconductor manufacturing or watch others build alternatives.
Taiwan should reframe the TSMC expansion narrative from defensive anxiety to offensive opportunity. Instead of fearing the creation of a “US-SMC,” Taiwan should champion the emergence of “Global-SMC” — a distributed network of facilities united by Taiwanese technological leadership and innovation. This requires shifting from a manufacturing-centric to an innovation-centric identity.
The Arizona fabs would likely face the same challenges that have historically favored Taiwan: complex supply chains, skilled workforce requirements and the iterative learning that comes from concentrated expertise. These advantages cannot be easily replicated, giving Taiwan time to evolve its competitive position.
Rather than competing on manufacturing scale, Taiwan can compete on technological sophistication, advanced packaging and next-generation process development.
The poll results reflect a natural, but ultimately counterproductive impulse to preserve “status quo” advantages. True strategic thinking requires embracing change to maintain leadership.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry succeeded by being globally minded, technologically ambitious and commercially pragmatic. These same principles, not nostalgic protectionism, would ensure its dominance going into the future.
TSMC’s global expansion represents not the dilution of Taiwan’s technological power, but its multiplication across continents. The question is whether Taiwan would lead this transformation or be left behind by it.
Y. Tony Yang is an endowed professor and associate dean at George Washington University.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS