The U.S. Policy Toward Taiwan Beyond Donald Trump: Mapping the American Stakeholders of U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Donald Trump’s return to the White House reintroduced acute uncertainty into the security commitment of the United States (U.S.) to Taiwan. Unlike President Joe Biden, who repeatedly stated the determination to defend Taiwan, President Trump refrains from commenting on the hypothetical U.S. response in the context of a cross-Strait crisis.
Titre
Key takeways
Over the past year, the Trump 2 administration brought back uncertainty and volatility in U.S. foreign policy, including vis-à-vis China and Taiwan. Trump has used harsh language about Taiwan and often seems to prioritize a trade deal with Beijing over Taiwan’s security.
Yet unpacking the U.S. policy toward Taiwan reveals that Donald Trump is not the only stakeholder. First, besides the president, government agencies have proved consistent in sustaining political and military cooperation with Taiwan.
Congress remains the most reliable institution upholding closer cooperation with Taiwan, advancing bipartisan laws that expand defense, energy, and space cooperation.
The American tech giants have expanded investments in Taiwan’s semiconductor, AI, and cloud ecosystem, embedding U.S. technological competitiveness in Taiwan.
Ultimately, whether Donald Trump is genuinely interested in Taiwan’s security or not, there are heavy counterweights in the U.S. and a wide consensus in Congress and industry in support of Taiwan.
Trump's only comments—very debatable and largely unfounded—have consisted of assessing that “China doesn’t want to do that [i.e., invade Taiwan]”, and quoting Xi Jinping during a phone call as saying, for instance: “He told me, ‘I will never do it as long as you’re president’.” In addition, he has harshly criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the American semiconductor industry, and pressured Taiwanese industries to invest ever more in the U.S. While there is no evidence of Trump’s intention to abandon Taiwan, or bargaining it away for a trade deal with Beijing as some have anticipated, the question of whether the U.S. would intervene if Beijing attempted forcible unification with Taiwan looms larger than at any point in the recent decades.
Yet, focusing exclusively on presidential rhetoric risks overlooking the deeper structural forces shaping U.S.-Taiwan relations. The U.S. policy toward Taiwan is sustained not only by the president but also by a wider, more complex system of stakeholders, including executive agencies, Congress, as well as the American industrial technological base. This Memo aims to make sense of the U.S. policy on Taiwan by mapping these different stakeholders and drawing perspectives on the future of U.S.-Taiwan relations under Trump.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
The U.S. Policy Toward Taiwan Beyond Donald Trump: Mapping the American Stakeholders of U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
China’s Climate Leadership after Hormuz: How Should Europe Adjust?
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 offered an unplanned stress test of China’s approach to energy security, and China passed it far better than most expected. The episode demonstrated that the underlying risk of supply disruption is real, while validating a preference for resilience and resource security that has long underpinned Chinese energy and climate policy and has now been reinforced under the banner of building an “energy powerhouse.”
China as an ambivalent supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trading system
Amid rising trade tensions between Europe and China and broader uncertainty in the international rules-based trade regime, Beijing has worked to preserve and bolster the multilateral trading system while at the same time failing to reform the domestic policies that have served to undermine that same system.
Canada in the Indo-Pacific: Sustaining the Pivot, Partnering with France
Since the launch of Canada’s inaugural Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) in November 2022, Ottawa has moved—with notable but uneven momentum—from the margins of regional engagement to a position of growing strategic visibility. The Strategy, backed by an initial $2.3 billion five-year investment, reflects a long-overdue recognition: Canada is a Pacific nation whose prosperity and security are inextricably linked to the stability of the world’s most economically and strategically consequential region.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.