Why Trump Stayed Silent on Taiwan at the Busan Summit?

Wang Xiangsui & Charriot Zhai, The China Academy, October 31, 2025 —

At the China-U.S. summit in Busan on Oct 30, 2025, Donald Trump notably avoided mentioning Taiwan question—a sharp break from Washington’s usual use of the issue as leverage against Beijing. Chinese scholar Wang Xiangsui argues this silence shows a rare, reality-based calculation by Trump.

When the leaders of China and the United States met in Busan, South Korea, on October 30, most headlines from outlets focused on their agreements over tariffs, rare earth exports, and agricultural trade. Yet one detail stood out: Donald Trump did not mention Taiwan, not even once.

For decades, the Taiwan question has served as a recurring pressure point in Washington’s relationship with China. Its sudden absence from the agenda was therefore striking. Western media noted the omission, but few offered a clear explanation.

According to Professor Wang Xiangsui, a Chinese strategist and former PLA senior colonel, argues that this silence reflects a decision more grounded in reality, and more aligned with U.S. national interests, than those of any previous American president. From the perspective of military balance in the Asia-Pacific, the “Taiwan card” has shifted from a strategic asset into a political liability for the United States.

Historically, Washington wielded the Taiwan question as leverage because it possessed the credible military means to intervene. During the 1950s through the 1970s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy and Air Force were underdeveloped in scale, equipment, and training, lagging behind not only U.S., and even struggled to gain a clear edge over the armed forces on Taiwan island itself.

Moreover, the U.S. demonstrated a real willingness to use force. During the Taiwan Strait crises of 1954 and 1958, the Eisenhower administration dispatched the Seventh Fleet into the Strait, supplied Taipei with advanced weaponry like the AIM-9B Sidewinder missile, and even issued nuclear threats.

In short, America’s overwhelming military superiority, and its demonstrated readiness to deploy it, was the bedrock of its confidence in playing the “Taiwan card.” A modest investment of military resources could yield outsized political dividends.

But today, the fulcrum of that leverage has decisively shifted toward the Chinese mainland.

The traditional U.S. intervention playbook relied on four interlocking steps: deploying carrier strike groups, seizing air superiority, conducting land strikes, and, if necessary, providing amphibious or airborne support. Now, however, China’s rapidly maturing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities have thrown the first two steps into serious doubt.

First, the PLA’s situational awareness around the Taiwan Strait and across the Western Pacific has dramatically improved. A layered reconnaissance network, featuring stealthy UAVs like the WZ-10 and high-altitude, long-endurance platforms such as the WZ-7, integrated with satellite and maritime surveillance systems, now provides near real-time tracking of U.S. carrier groups. This enables precise targeting and rapid engagement by anti-ship missiles.

Second, the deployment of anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and DF-26 has given China the ability to strike moving naval targets at ranges of 1,500 to 4,000 kilometers. Their high speed and long reach, combined with robust battlefield awareness, pose a severe threat to U.S. aircraft carriers, forcing them to operate far from the action and significantly degrading the effectiveness of their air wings in contesting air superiority.

Third, as of 2024, conservative estimates from outlets like The National Interest suggest that China has produced over 200 J-20 stealth fighters, making it the operator of the world’s largest fleet of heavy fifth-generation fighters.

Compared to the F-22s and F-35s the U.S. has forward-deployed in the region, the J-20 operates from home bases with shorter logistics chains and more resilient command structures. Backed by over 1,000 fourth-generation fighters and long-range PL-series air-to-air missiles that out-range their American counterparts, the PLA Air Force now holds a decisive home-field advantage in any contest for control of the skies near Taiwan Strait. Meanwhile, platforms like the H-6 bomber, armed with advanced missiles such as the YJ-21, further extend China’s anti-carrier reach.

In sum, the PLA’s rapid A2/AD buildup has transformed the U.S. calculus: blocking China’s reunification has gone from a low-risk, high-reward option to a near-certain path to defeat in any hot conflict.

These developments have prompted reassessments within U.S. defense circles. Consider the evolution of RAND Corporation reports: in 2000, its study Dire Strait? Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Confrontation and Options for U.S. Policy focused on the mechanics of military intervention. But on October 14, 2025, RAND published Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry, which pivots to exploring how the two powers might coexist amid deep-seated differences—a telling shift in analytical priorities.

For a businessman like Trump, facing such unfavorable odds, the instinct to cut losses and walk away is only natural. Viewed through the lens of historical precedent, his silence may seem like an anomaly. But seen in the context of shifting power dynamics, it’s the inevitable outcome of China’s decades-long, resolute investment in national defense and its persistent “positioning” around the Taiwan Strait.

Professor Wang adds, however, that Trump’s silence also reveals a kind of wisdom of embracing a give-and-take approach in dealings between major powers. While military intervention is no longer viable, stoking tensions over Taiwan still serves the interests of America’s powerful defense-industrial complex by generating more arms contracts. Thus, Trump’s attempt to sideline the issue, to remove a major obstacle from U.S.-China trade talks, must contend with fierce domestic political headwinds and the “historical baggage” accumulated by past administrations.

His current approach may therefore be a calculated balancing act: signaling goodwill for immediate negotiations while sidestepping entrenched domestic opposition. In this sense, his silence speaks volumes, not as a grand strategy, but as a shrewd, if constrained, form of realpolitik.

Yet one question remains: how long can such “pragmatic silence” endure, both in Trump’s own resolve and within America’s political climate? That, for now, remains an open question.