Key Points – Despite US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent strong statement at the Shangri-La Dialogue (May 31st) that the US would “fight and win decisively” if China invaded Taiwan, longstanding US “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan likely remains intact under President Donald Trump.
-Hegseth’s remarks are viewed more as tough talk than a definitive policy shift.
-President Trump is believed to favor a diplomatic solution to the Taiwan issue and values strategic unpredictability to keep Beijing guessing.
-He is also pushing Taiwan to bolster its own defenses, suggesting a reluctance for direct US military intervention, even as the Indo-Pacific remains a top US priority.
Is the Era of U.S. Strategic Ambiguity Toward Taiwan Over?
Some China watchers are claiming that U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has stated the Americans will defend Taiwan from Chinese attack.
I’m not convinced this is completely true.
Hegseth gave a fiery speech in a recent Asian defense conference and did articulate some concrete declarations about what the United States’ military posture is in East Asia. But his exact words are still somewhat ambiguous and not the formation of a specific strategy against China vis a vis Taiwan.
Hegseth told Singapore’s annual Shangri-La Dialogue on May 31, “President Trump has said that Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch. Our goal is to prevent war. And we will do this with a strong shield of deterrence … But if deterrence fails, we will be prepared to do what the Department of Defence does best—fight and win—decisively.”
We Know What Hegseth Said, But What Does He Really Mean?
Let’s look into the tea leaves behind this statement.
First, according to Hegseth, Trump has said that Taiwan would not invade on his watch. Trump believes there will be a diplomatic and political solution, not a military solution to the Taiwan question. Trump will do everything in his power to avoid a U.S. military intervention.
Hegseth did say “fight and win decisively.” What does that mean? Is this merely a statement for deterrence or a signal that the Americans would intervene in a China blockade or invasion?
The Hegseth declaration is more bluster and not U.S. policy. He is not speaking for Trump, and that means that “strategic ambiguity” is still in effect, at least in my view.
The SECDEF Said China Is Belligerent
Hegseth also said that the China threat is imminent. “We know that Xi Jinping has ordered his military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] is building the capabilities needed to do it—at breakneck speed. The PLA is training for it every day. The PLA is rehearsing for the real deal. Let me be clear: any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. We are not going to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.”
What If China Never Attacks?
The 2027 date of a China invasion is a popular warning call in Washington, DC, but this deadline is not etched in stone.
A Chinese amphibious attack on Taiwan would be difficult. China has not fought a war since 1979. U.S. intelligence satellites would provide early warning for Taiwan.
There are only a handful of beaches suitable for landing, and these are well defended. Taiwan could fight a guerrilla war in the foothills and mountains of the island and hold out indefinitely. The Taiwanese individual soldier could fight with the expertise and efficacy of Ukrainian troops. Defense is often stronger than offense.
For these reasons, China may not attack Taiwan and instead seek a political and diplomatic resolution for annexation. Reunification is the ultimate goal, and Xi Jinping has not ruled out force, but the 2027 date for invasion may not be correct.
Hegseth Is Just Talking Tough
Thus, Hegseth is getting ahead of his skis. He got caught up in the moment and wanted to talk tough, which is his usual style. Conversely, Trump is cagey and is not convinced that strategic ambiguity is over despite Hegseth’s combative rhetoric.
The president wants Taiwan to pay more for its defense, and the island nation is spending more on its military. He would like Taiwan to import more American arms systems. Taipei is adding more personnel to its army and has even considered recruiting foreign fighters to bolster its forces.
One thing that is clear from Hegseth and his Under Secretary of Policy Elbridge Colby is that the Indo-Pacific will be the most important defense priority for the United States. That means a long-term focus on the China-Taiwan question.
U.S. Strategy Is Still Ambiguous
However, U.S. policy toward Taiwan is has not solidified at this point. Sometimes administration members say things in speeches that are above board and too revealing. Trump hates war and giving mutual defense guarantees. Look at his statements toward NATO. He wants to be strategically unpredictable and not telegraph his intentions. This means that there is still ambiguity about Taiwan.
I am confident that any Chinese actions against the island would be met with high levels of diplomacy on the side of the United States. Trump would be able to achieve a cease fire without the use of U.S. forces. Look to the example of India and Pakistan. Trump was able to keep these countries from fighting and they hate each other.
Do not discount Trump’ diplomatic ability. The U.S. may not try to defend Taiwan immediately. With strategic ambiguity, the president thus has more options and wiggle room that will keep China guessing. Xi may never order a Chinese attack and will continue to have his military rehearse a blockade or invasion.
However, with Trump in office there will still be American strategic unpredictability toward China and Taiwan.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Hypersonic Weapons In Depth
Russia’s Hypersonic Missiles Summed Up in 4 Words
