On Thursday last week, the aministration of US President Donald Trump released its latest National Security Strategy report (NSS), which not only revealed the White House’s position in global affairs, but also cleared up rumors surrounding Taiwan.
Doubts about the US — claims that Trump is unreliable, would make deals with China or might even abandon Taiwan — have been thoroughly disproven by the report, proving that the rumors were nothing but baseless political maneuvering.
The Trump administration’s foreign policy is not based on ideology, but on what best serves US interests. In the report the US clearly defines Taiwan’s strategic value: Beyond the nation’s crucial position in the global semiconductor supply chain, it is also the key gateway to the second island chain, and divides the strategic theaters of Northeast and Southeast Asia.
Moreover, with one-third of global shipping passing through the Taiwan Strait into the South China Sea, Taiwan’s stability is critical to the US’ interests.
The report clearly stated that the US would bolster deterrence together with its allies to prevent China from attempting to seize Taiwan and stop Beijing from establishing a military posture that would make defending the nation impossible.
With such explicit wording written in black and white, anyone who still claims that Trump would “sell out Taiwan,” is basically saying the US president would willingly sacrifice core national interests and hand over the Indo-Pacific region to China. That makes no strategic sense. What Trump is likely planning is to allow Taiwan and the US to jointly manage China’s rise, and contain its ability to undermine regional order.
Doubts about the US have also given rise to another fearmongering narrative: Because the US is unreliable, Taiwan is “the most dangerous place on the planet.”
The Economist has repeatedly sensationalized a looming crisis in the Taiwan Strait since 2021. Yet, the places where war has actually broken out are in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the South China Sea and the borders of Southeast Asia. Under the framework of peace jointly upheld by many countries, the Taiwan Strait has instead demonstrated a high degree of stability.
The Economist this year said Trump was abandoning Taiwan, only to be again refuted by the National Security Strategy. The report explicitly reiterates that the US does not support any unilateral change to the “status quo” in the Strait. That is not just the position of the US, but also the consensus among the G7 and most democratic nations.
Taiwan’s importance extends far beyond semiconductors or geopolitical strategy. Its true international value lies in the fact that it is the world’s best teacher for understanding China. Whether it is economic coercion, authoritarian infiltration, media pressure, “gray zone” tactics, military intimidation, internal collaboration or bullying of neighboring countries, everything other nations seek to understand about how China operates is something Taiwan has already experienced firsthand — and can therefore provide the clearest warning about.
This year’s security report revealed a reality that could not be clearer — Taiwan is not a burden to the US, but the central fulcrum of its Indo-Pacific strategy. Those who doubt the US dismiss that structural reality and distort international assessments of Taiwan. It is high time to put an end to the baseless rumors and establish a clearer understanding of Taiwan’s true position in the world.
Wang Hung-jen is a professor at National Cheng Kung University’s Department of Political Science.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS