Following his highly anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), US President Donald Trump was accused by many commentators of abandoning Taiwan.
During a series of interviews and statements, Trump has expressed that the US would not support Taiwanese independence and suggested that Washington would not go to war if Taipei unilaterally declared independence. For many observers, those remarks appeared to confirm one of Taiwan’s worst fears: that the nation could become a bargaining chip in a broader US-China negotiation.
However, that conclusion misunderstands what Trump said and the long-standing foundations of US policy toward Taiwan.
Trump did not abandon Taiwan. He restated, in blunt language, the same core position that has guided US policy for decades.
The US has never supported a formal declaration of Taiwanese independence. Instead, Washington has maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity designed to preserve peace across the Taiwan Strait, deter unilateral changes to the “status quo,” and maintain Taiwan’s ability to defend itself.
Trump changed the tone, but not the substance.
This distinction is crucial because Taiwan itself has not sought a formal declaration of independence. Neither President William Lai (賴清德) nor former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has argued that Taiwan needs to proclaim independence. Their position has been consistent: Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country.
Taiwan possesses all the characteristics commonly associated with statehood; by any functional measure, Taiwan operates as an independent state.
The fact that most countries do not have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan is a political reality, but it does not erase the its de facto sovereignty.
Shared language and cultural heritage do not determine national ownership.
Trump is not the first US president to make such remarks. In January 2024, then-US president Joe Biden said unequivocally that the US did not support the independence of Taiwan, after Taiwanese voters rebuffed China and gave the Democratic Progressive Party a third uninterrupted presidential term.
At the time, Biden’s statement did not signal a withdrawal of US support for Taiwan. The Biden administration continued approving arms sales, deepening military cooperation and expanding political engagement with Taipei. Washington’s policy remained unchanged: The US opposed a unilateral declaration of independence while continuing to support Taiwan’s security and democratic system.
Trump’s rhetoric might have been more direct, but the underlying policy is identical.
Trump also made clear that he prefers the “status quo” to continue. He stated that China was unlikely to take military action while he remained in office, reflecting his long-standing belief that his relationship with Xi and his own unpredictability serve as deterrents, and said that he would like that China and Taiwan would “cool down.”
Trump understands Taiwan’s enormous strategic importance. At the center of that importance is the semiconductor industry. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) produces the world’s most advanced chips and occupies a central position in the global technology supply chain.
In an era increasingly defined by competition over artificial intelligence and military technology, Taiwan’s role has become more crucial than ever. The US remains dependent on Taiwan for access to cutting-edge semiconductors.
Although TSMC has invested in manufacturing facilities in Arizona, the company has repeatedly said that its most advanced research and production would remain in Taiwan. Taiwanese officials have likewise made it clear that Taiwan intends to retain its technological edge because semiconductor dominance forms a crucial strategic deterrent, often referred to as the “silicon shield.”
Support for Taiwan also extends far beyond Trump. Congressional backing for Taiwan has been remarkably consistent across Republican and Democratic administrations. Lawmakers from both parties view Taiwan as a key democratic partner and a critical component of the security of the Indo-Pacific region.
This bipartisan consensus has translated into continued arms sales, military training and closer political ties. As long as Congress remains committed to Taiwan’s defense, the fundamentals of the relationship are unlikely to change dramatically based on rhetoric.
Trump’s softer language toward Beijing is better understood as part of a broader strategic calculation. At the time of the summit, the US faced pressing concerns in the Middle East, including instability affecting energy markets and global shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump might have strong incentives to seek Chinese cooperation on issues extending well beyond East Asia. That does not mean Taiwan has been abandoned: Like every US president before him, Trump is balancing multiple strategic priorities simultaneously.
Taiwan’s response should be calm and pragmatic. Rather than overreacting to headlines, Taipei should focus on concrete indicators of US commitment.
The most important of these is whether the Trump administration authorizes and delivers the weapons packages that the US government has already approved. If those arms sales proceed, then in practical terms very little would have changed.
Taiwan’s security has always depended on more than statements from Washington.
It rests on the nation’s own resilience, strategic importance and the recognition among democracies that peace in the Taiwan Strait is essential to global stability.
The US is unlikely to support a declaration of independence by Taipei, but it would most likely continue to support Taiwan’s security, democracy and ability to resist coercion.
Juan Fernando Herrera Ramos is a Honduran journalist based in Taipei.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS