Taiwan Current News (TCN), in partnership with the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), has launched a new podcast series, Taiwan Frontlines, to track global trends and explore how Taiwan connects with the world.In the latest episode former US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sat down with Bonnie Glaser and Jason Hsu for an in-depth discussion on Washington’s long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity” — and the sharply different approaches taken by Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the question of defending Taiwan.The worst policyAs debate grows in Washington over whether the United States should shift toward “strategic clarity,” Sullivan offered a striking defense of the status quo.“In a way, strategic ambiguity is the worst policy except for every other policy,” he said, underscoring the complex trade-offs embedded in US Taiwan policy.While acknowledging that past success does not guarantee future effectiveness, Sullivan argued that the current approach has played a critical role in maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He said that a major shift in policy could create confusion among allies and adversaries alike, increasing the risk of miscalculation.“There’s a risk that if you change a policy, people will misunderstand why,” he noted, adding that such ambiguity in interpretation could lead to a “jumble” of signals and force Washington into constant reassurance efforts.Despite ongoing calls for reform, Sullivan suggested that, for now, the balance of risks and benefits still favors maintaining the existing framework.Biden vs. TrumpThe interview also highlighted a stark contrast between how Biden and Trump handle the sensitive question of whether the US would militarily defend Taiwan.Trump, according to the discussion, has treated uncertainty itself as leverage — deliberately declining to state how the US would respond to a Chinese attack in order to preserve deterrence.Biden, by contrast, repeatedly gave a clear and direct answer: yes, the United States would defend Taiwan if it were attacked. Sullivan revealed that Biden’s responses were not the result of a calculated strategic shift, but rather reflected his personal style as a “straight-talking” politician.“If he’s asked a hypothetical question, he’s going to answer it,” Sullivan said, noting that Biden has little patience for evasive or ambiguous language. At the same time, Sullivan emphasized that Biden consistently paired these remarks with a reaffirmation that official US policy had not changed — maintaining continuity with longstanding strategic ambiguity.This combination — direct presidential statements alongside formal policy consistency — ultimately formed what Sullivan described as a workable and “perfectly sound” balance.Balancing clarity and stabilityTaken together, the contrasting approaches of Biden and Trump reflect different methods of achieving the same strategic goal: sustaining deterrence while avoiding escalation.While Sullivan stopped short of declaring the current policy permanently sufficient, he stated that maintaining strategic ambiguity remains, at least for now, the most viable path forward.“I’m still grappling with this,” he admitted.For more in-depth coverage, tune in to Taiwan Frontlines on the NOWNEWS official YouTube channel.