US President Donald Trump’s tariff policy serves as an objective and as a tool for him. Its objectives are twofold: first, to ease the US’ debt burden through tariff revenue; second, to provide a tax base for the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” tax cuts.
The execution lies in pressuring other countries to negotiate with the US and make concessions in exchange for tariff reductions. Yet Trump’s tariff policy cannot solve the US’ deeper challenges — widening income inequality, blue-collar workers forced into low-paying jobs after losing manufacturing positions, inflationary pressure and the inability to sustain a long-term confrontation against China.
The US faces several economic problems.
First, its deindustrialization has worsened inequality. Displaced blue-collar workers are unable to shift into other manufacturing jobs and instead, they are forced into low-wage service work. Imposing high tariffs on China without viable substitutes only fuels inflation and undermines the sustainability of these policies.
Second, excessively high education and healthcare costs raise living expenses and reduce living standards, leaving lower and middle-class families unable to advance through education and decreasing social mobility.
Third, the proliferation of drugs and firearms severely threatens public safety. Frequent homicides reduce the labor force and impose heavy social costs.
The most critical issue is deindustrialization — manufacturing accounts for only 10 percent of US GDP. This creates several problems.
First, income inequality continues to widen. High-wage jobs are limited to doctors, lawyers, accountants and specific service sectors such as information technology, telecommunications and logistics while most other service jobs remain low-wage.
Second, workers from the withering manufacturing industry cannot transition into related fields and are forced into low-paying service jobs, with little sense of satisfaction in their work. Manufacturing provides stronger industrial linkages and more job ladders, offering opportunities for advancement.
Third, with a gutted industrial base, there’s a lack of substitutes for Chinese goods. The US must still import from China and Southeast Asia, pushing up prices, worsening inflation and making tariff policy unsustainable — preventing the US from engaging in a long economic contest with China.
Trump’s call for reindustrialization could help narrow income inequality and ease the plight of blue-collar workers. However, Trump has ideas without effective strategies. Beyond pressuring semiconductor and automobile giants to invest in the US, he lacks substitutes for everyday consumer industries, which still depend heavily on imports from China.
Taiwan’s experience in helping China create 60 million to 80 million jobs could be replicated in the US. If Washington sets clear performance indicators such as the level of Taiwanese investment, number of jobs created, skilled workers trained and technical schools established, Taiwan could in return secure lower reciprocal tariffs, special economic zones (with looser restrictions on foreign labor, reduced union constraints and land or tax incentives), while introducing artificial intelligence, automation and robotics to cut costs. This would allow traditional industries to take root in the US, reduce import dependence, curb inflation and create more jobs.
At the same time, Taiwan could access parts of the US market and mitigate the impact of reciprocal tariffs on its domestic industries — a win-win strategy.
In the medical service area, Taiwan offers relatively affordable services. If bilateral agreements are established, some US patients with severe illnesses could seek treatment in Taiwan under international medical programs, significantly reducing medical costs for patients and the US healthcare system.
In education, establishing technical schools or programs and clear promotion channels could expand employment opportunities, reduce income inequality and even lower crime rates.
On drugs and guns, effective zoning laws could be introduced. For example, within particular zones, all firearms and drugs would be strictly banned. People who are caught with these items in those areas, would face heavier penalties. Such measures could curb the spread of drugs and guns. If these programs succeed, they could be expanded nationwide.
The US’ challenges — reindustrialization, high medical costs and expensive education — are deeply entrenched. Taiwan could help alleviate some of these problems by creating more manufacturing jobs, supporting blue-collar transitions, narrowing income inequality and building vocational institutions that lower education costs while providing immediate employment opportunities after graduation. With effective medical agreements, Taiwan could help reduce US medical costs, especially for low and middle-income families. Of course, such cooperation must be subject to volume controls to prevent resistance from US medical associations.
A broader Taiwan-US cooperation and strategic alliance could help mend the US’ deeper structural economic issues. This is a path worth considering by both governments as they seek a closer partnership.
Wang Jiann-chyuan is vice president of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS