Xi Jinping promises Taiwan safe as long as Trump in power, says Trump

President Trump said China's president Xi promised he would not attack Taiwan as long as Trump is in office.

In an interview broadcast on August 15 on Fox News’ Special Report, US President Donald Trump said that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had told him personally that China would not invade Taiwan as long as he is in office.

"He told me, ‘I will never do it as long as you’re president,'" Trump said. "President Xi told me that, and I said, ‘Well, I appreciate that,’" added Trump.

Trump made the claim while en route to a summit in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump compared the situation with Taiwan to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, saying, “You have a very similar thing with President Xi of China and Taiwan, but I don’t believe there’s any way it’s going to happen as long as I’m here. We’ll see.”

On the same day, the Chinese Embassy in Washington responded, calling Taiwan “the most important and sensitive issue” in China–US relations.

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said, “The US government should adhere to the one-China principle and the three US-China joint communiqués, handle Taiwan-related issues carefully, and sincerely protect China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Trump’s remarks may be grounded in truth, but caution is still needed

On the surface, President Trump’s recent remarks may suggest a period of temporary stability in cross-Strait relations. However, the broader context of US-China diplomatic messaging surrounding the issue deserves closer examination. For Taiwan, understanding these developments within the wider framework of regional power dynamics and security challenges is essential.

Professor Ho Chih-yung (何志勇) of the Center of General Education at Tsinghua University told TCN that while the exact content of the phone call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping remains unknown, Beijing’s official response did not dispute Trump’s account. Instead, China restated its longstanding position on Taiwan, suggesting that Trump’s comments may be grounded in some level of factual accuracy, Ho added.

Professor Wang Hung-jen (王宏仁) of the Department of Political Science at National Cheng Kung University told TCN that recent US-China exchanges over Taiwan send a more cautionary signal than a reassuring one. Wang indicated that while Trump’s comments could be interpreted as implying a three-year window of peace in the Taiwan Strait, Beijing may view them differently. Wang warned that China might interpret Trump’s remarks as a "green light"—believing the US would avoid military involvement regardless of Taiwan’s actions. That, he said, could be seen as unacceptable in Beijing.

If Xi did indeed make such a statement, it may have been a diplomatic courtesy or part of a strategic move. Wang suggested that if the US places too much trust in vague assurances, it risks slipping into strategic complacency—an outcome that would concern regional security stakeholders, including Taiwan.

Looking ahead, Wang said a future summit between Trump and Xi could become a critical turning point in shaping the triangular relationship among Washington, Beijing, and Taipei.

Trump has stated that China would not attack Taiwan during his presidency, while Beijing has reiterated its expectations that the US adhere to the "One-China Principle" and the three joint communiqués, Wang said.

Whether this episode could mark the start of renewed US-China efforts to reach a consensus, particularly aimed at discouraging Taiwan from pursuing legal independence.

Wang said this scenario cannot be ruled out. He pointed to the reported US rejection of President Lai’s proposed transit stop in New York as a possible early sign of changing US attitudes in its broader strategic calculus with China.



Dangerous miscalculations

During his Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump compared the situation in the Taiwan Strait to the war in Ukraine.—casting himself as a global “peacemaker.”

Professor Wang indicated that such comparisons are flawed due to the distinct cultural, historical, and geopolitical contexts of the two conflicts. He said that such framing could lead to serious miscalculations by Beijing; if China perceives that the US tacitly accepts Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine, it might be emboldened to adopt a similar “salami-slicing” strategy toward Taiwan—potentially beginning with the seizure of outlying islands like Kinmen or Penghu.

Professor Ho added that while the US continues to support maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, Trump’s past references to “peace and unification” hint at a possible openness to peaceful unification—albeit presented in neutral terms.

Ho also noted that recent actions by the US government do not appear to support President Lai Ching-te’s so-called “new two-state theory,” a signal that Taiwan’s leadership should not ignore.

Taiwan must adjust its US engagement strategy

The balance of US-China trade has emerged as a central theme in global strategy this year, with many analysts believing that without progress on economic consensus, related strategic issues—such as the Taiwan Strait—are unlikely to be resolved. Against this backdrop, President Trump’s recent remarks may signal deeper strategic shifts, prompting experts to urge vigilance from Taiwan.

Professor Ho said that trade and supply chain restructuring remain the main focus of US-China relations, and Taiwan is currently not a central issue in those talks. That, he argued, may actually work to Taiwan’s advantage by keeping it out of the direct line of confrontation.

Still, Ho noted that if Taiwan were to become a focal point in negotiations, the outcomes might not be favorable, and therefore, Taiwan should not remain passive but instead consider adjusting its engagement strategy with the United States accordingly.

Professor Wang suggested that US policy has clearly shifted under Trump, as Democratic administrations often emphasized shared democratic values, whereas the Trump administration adopts a more interest-based, realist approach to foreign policy—including in its dealings with Taiwan. The DPP government, he said, must take note of this change and recalibrate accordingly.

Both Ho and Wang pointed to weak communication channels between the current Taiwan administration and Trump’s core team. Wang called for a reassessment of key diplomatic personnel, particularly Taiwan’s representative in Washington, as an urgent priority.

Beyond foreign policy, domestic issues have also come under scrutiny. While the US has welcomed Taiwan’s growing defense budget, Wang said Washington remains concerned about Taiwan’s energy policy—especially the ongoing debate over nuclear power. He urged the government to consider adjustments, given the US interest in Taiwan’s long-term resilience and readiness.

Ultimately, both scholars emphasized that Taiwan must act more proactively and strategically in navigating a fast-changing geopolitical environment—balancing its values with pragmatic engagement.



Trump’s claim that Xi Jinping would not attack Taiwan during his presidency—regardless of intent—suggests that US-China strategic dynamics may be shifting toward a form of mutual understanding. For Taiwan, caught between two major powers, this moment requires cautious engagement and a reassessment of strategic priorities.