Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election was driven in part by his promise to fundamentally reshape the operations of the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally. With about 65% of registered voters expressing dissatisfaction with the country’s current direction, Trump’s commitment to shaking up established policies struck a chord with a broad segment of the electorate.
When it comes to Taiwan, Trump has signaled a willingness to break away from the carefully crafted policies that past administrations adhered to over the last four decades. Trump and his advisors seem less bound by the intricate nuances of past commitments, opting instead for a more flexible approach aimed at addressing the challenges posed by China’s increasing assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait. This analysis highlights areas where U.S. policy toward Taiwan might benefit from innovation, as well as areas where maintaining established practices is advisable.
The Core of U.S. Policy: Peace and Stability
At the heart of America’s strategy in the Taiwan Strait lies the goal of preserving peace and stability. Unlike other global issues, the United States does not advocate for a specific resolution or end-state for the cross-Strait conflict. Instead, its focus is on ensuring that the people of Taiwan and mainland China can resolve their differences through peaceful means, without violence or coercion.
For Washington to be effective in this role, it must position itself as a principled mediator committed to safeguarding peace. This means countering Beijing’s increasing pressure on Taipei while also addressing any destabilizing actions Taiwan might take. Recognizing the dynamic nature of the cross-Strait status quo, the U.S. aims to restore balance whenever shifts occur, whether prompted by Beijing or Taipei. This requires maintaining a clear and steadfast commitment to overarching goals that go beyond simply countering China’s ambitions.
Taiwan’s Legal Status: A Strategic Ambiguity
The Trump administration should uphold the position that Taiwan’s legal and territorial status remains unresolved. While this distinction may seem technical, it is central to broader strategic considerations.
If Beijing succeeds in convincing the international community that Taiwan is an internal matter, the issue would be treated as China’s domestic concern. However, by emphasizing Taiwan’s undetermined status, the U.S. frames it as a matter of international peace and security. This global perspective aligns with U.S. interests, given Taiwan’s critical role in the global economy—particularly as a hub for advanced semiconductor production—and its importance to regional stability in East Asia.
In recent years, more leaders from Asia, Europe, and the Americas have recognized the significance of Taiwan’s peace and stability to their own national interests. Many have sent high-level delegations to Taiwan or increased military presence in the region. Building on this momentum, the Trump administration could encourage more global leaders to publicly emphasize how Taiwan’s security directly impacts their countries’ prosperity and stability.