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.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS