Trump could save Taiwan, but he needs a history lesson first

The debate over whether Donald Trump could "save Taiwan" hinges on a paradox at the heart of U.S.-China relations: the former president’s transactional approach to foreign policy could either stiffen America’s deterrent posture in the Indo-Pacific or deepen the very strategic ambiguity that has emboldened Beijing. Trump’s unpredictability has long unsettled allies, but in this case, his willingness to upend conventional wisdom—whether through tariffs, tariff threats, or even a willingness to reconsider long-standing diplomatic "red lines"—might just provide the shock therapy Taipei and Washington need to confront a growing threat. The stakes are existential for Taiwan, where Beijing’s military exercises and economic coercion have escalated since 2022, and for the U.S., which faces the unenviable choice of either abandoning its long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" or risking a catastrophic conflict over a de facto independent democracy. What many observers overlook is the depth of Trump’s pre-presidency ties to Taiwanese officials and his long-standing skepticism of China’s economic and military rise. Unlike his predecessors, who often framed U.S. support for Taiwan as a humanitarian obligation, Trump’s interactions have been framed through a lens of deal-making—a perspective that could theoretically align with a hardline stance on Beijing’s aggression. Yet his administration’s mixed record—from approving record arms sales to Taiwan to cozying up to Xi Jinping during the 2020 trade war—suggests that his approach remains inconsistent. The question now is whether Trump, if reelected, would prioritize deterrence over engagement, or whether his transactional instincts would lead him to trade away Taiwanese sovereignty for some other geopolitical concession. For Washington, the challenge is balancing deterrence with stability. Trump’s instincts might push him toward a more rigid stance, but without a clear framework for escalation, his unpredictability could trigger miscalculations. Meanwhile, Taipei must navigate a delicate dance: avoiding provocation while signaling resolve to deter invasion. The broader trend here is the erosion of America’s post-Cold War deterrent posture, as rising powers like China and revisionist states like Russia test its limits. Whether Trump’s presidency can reverse that decline—or accelerate it—may well define the next decade of global security.