For nearly 50 years, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has been defined by strategic ambiguity, avoiding a clear commitment to military intervention in the event of conflict while deterring China from using force and discouraging Taiwan from declaring formal independence. However, this approach is increasingly being challenged by some American strategists amidst changing global dynamics, growing constraints on U.S. military capabilities, and China’s rising military strength.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the think tank Defence Priorities, has been among those advocating for a reassessment of U.S. strategy. In a recent report, she argued that the original premise of strategic ambiguity—based on unequivocal U.S. military superiority—no longer holds true given China’s enhanced capabilities and the U.S. military’s current vulnerabilities. Her research suggests that in a potential conflict over Taiwan, the United States and China would likely exhaust critical military resources, such as air-defense and offensive missiles, without either side securing a decisive advantage.
Kavanagh’s proposal includes explicitly ending strategic ambiguity and reconsidering U.S. mutual defense treaties with regional allies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. She also recommends repositioning U.S. forces away from the “first island chain”—which runs from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines—toward a smaller presence concentrated around the “second island chain,” extending from Japan through Guam to Papua New Guinea. This shift, she contends, would better align with the current strategic environment and reduce the risk of catastrophic confrontation.
Her views have met resistance within U.S. national security circles, with some critics labeling her suggestions as radical or aligned with Chinese Communist Party talking points. Nonetheless, Kavanagh and others promoting restraint argue that the United States must reassess its role and limitations, emphasizing military restraint, a focus on narrowly defined national interests, and strengthening domestic resilience.
The debate includes a broader historical context, with figures such as Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow from libertarian think tanks advocating against military intervention since the late 1990s. Scholars like Charles L. Glaser have proposed formal withdrawal of U.S. defense commitments to Taiwan, provided China adopts peaceful policies. More recently, analysts including Stephen Wertheim and Michael Swaine have called for preparing to stay out of a Taiwan conflict unless U.S. forces are directly attacked, warning that maintaining intervention commitments increases the risk of major war amid intensifying U.S.-China rivalry.
China considers Taiwan a breakaway province to be reunified by force if necessary, while the United States supports Taiwan’s defensive capabilities without formal recognition of its independence. Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University, noted that strategic ambiguity relied heavily on U.S. military dominance, which has diminished but acknowledged that changing U.S. policy faces significant inertia within Washington.
This renewed debate unfolds alongside shifts in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has pushed boundaries on longstanding practices. Taiwan’s status was a focal topic during two summits between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2024. While former President Joe Biden reaffirmed U.S. defense commitments to Taiwan, Trump has deliberately avoided such assurances. After the first summit in May, the Trump administration paused a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan, a decision that remains unresolved. Discussions about further delaying arms sales reflect ongoing uncertainty in U.S. policy.
As Washington reevaluates its strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific region, the future of U.S. engagement with Taiwan remains a subject of heated discussion, balancing deterrence, alliance commitments, and the risks of escalation with China.