Significant changes have impacted US domestic and international politics only a month into the second Donald Trump administration.
Working with tech multi-billionaire Elon Musk, the president has launched a crusade against what they deem "woke," "leftist," "corrupt," "fraudulent," and "bloated" government agencies.
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has moved at a breakneck pace, freezing funds, firing civil servants, making sweeping policy changes, and shutting down government offices and websites. Concerns over legality have clouded these moves, but the federal courts' capacity to challenge them appears slow and limited.
Meanwhile, the administration’s new and proposed tariffs are affecting allies and rivals alike. Reneging on the USMCA free trade agreement Trump negotiated in his first term, has injected uncertainty into global markets.
Trump's refusal to rule out military action when asked about taking over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal has raised further alarms regarding the stability of the liberal international order. All eyes are now on the United States, as it remains uncertain whether it will continue to be seen as a reliable ally for democracies worldwide.
For Taiwan, a growing divide within the pro-Taiwan (or pan-Green) camp has emerged over Trump’s approach. Initial disagreements focused on his unilateralist policies and disregard for norms, including his accusation that Taiwan stole the US semiconductor industry.
Another controversy arose from DOGE’s move to shut down USAID, affecting numerous NGOs and advocacy groups. The most recent flashpoint was Trump’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia War.
After a US-Russia summit, Ukraine questioned why it was excluded from talks. Trump responded by blaming Ukraine for "starting" the war, stating: “You should have never started it. You could’ve made a deal.” This remark shocked many international observers and worried many Taiwanese.
Concerns
Three key debates have emerged. The first concerns the validity and legitimacy of Trump and Musk’s claims of fraud and abuse. While critics warn of misinformation, many of their Taiwanese supporters dismiss third-party fact-checkers and the Western liberal media as biased and financially compromised.
The second centers on policy direction and effectiveness. Critics fear Trump’s unilateralism could destabilize the democratic alliance, eroding trust and influence.
The retreat from international aid could allow China and Russia to expand their soft power. Additionally, Trump’s plans to take over the Gaza Strip and extract rare earth minerals from Ukraine fuel concerns over a return to imperialist geopolitics.
They caution against Trump’s temperament and tendencies, arguing that the expansionist-friendly international environment that Trump is fostering could make Taiwan more vulnerable in defense and economics.
Trump’s defenders offer three counterarguments. They believe he is playing a strategic “bigger plan,” using threats, pivots, boasts, and even lies as negotiating tactics.
They embrace a realist and “international Darwinian” perspective, arguing that power and national interests dictate global relations, making transactional diplomacy all that matters. Finally, some outright reject perceived leftist politics and celebrate USAID’s shutdown, criticize EU countries as freeloaders, and urge Taiwan’s government to “ride the Trump train.”
New era
They criticize President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) for engaging with anti-Trump Republicans and express grievances about former President Tsai Ing-wen's (蔡英文) progressive policies.
The new Trump era has deepened fractures within the pro-Taiwan camp. Beyond a shared commitment to Taiwan’s security, the divide reflects broader ideological splits: institutionalists vs. populists, left vs. right, progressives vs. conservatives.
The question of what is good for Taiwan is now intertwined with US foreign policy and culture war dynamics. Given Trump’s momentum, this conflict shows no signs of resolution.
A year ago, the pro-Taiwan camp united against the opposition majority in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan over attempts to expand legislative power, suppress judicial independence, and obstruct executive functions. The Bluebird Movement opposed these measures.
When former Taiwan People’s Party Chair Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was detained on corruption charges, the camp again rallied against accusations of media manipulation. Similarly, when this year's national budget process saw irregularities, the pro-Taiwan movement called for transparency and professionalism.
These movements championed procedural justice, institutional trust, judicial independence, and democratic integrity. Ironically, similar issues now define the debate over Trump’s administration and DOGE.
The removal of inspector generals and the appointment of political loyalists mirror the KMT-TPP opposition’s efforts in the Legislative Yuan — expanding power without regard for legal procedures. Likewise, DOGE’s sweeping funding cuts resemble the Legislative Yuan’s budget reductions, both undermining critical agencies while justifying tax rebates. Both processes have been marked by a lack of transparency and professionalism.
Despite their disagreements, both factions within the pro-Taiwan camp agree on one major issue: Taiwan needs a higher defense budget to reassure the Trump administration of its commitment to self-defense.
Shared priorities
This shared priority has fueled calls to recall KMT legislators who obstructed the 2025 budget. However, this unity has not prevented heated infighting.
The most concerning trend is the pro-Trump faction’s tendency to label Trump’s critics as “anti-US” or “US skeptics.” This is a rhetoric that aligns them, intentionally or not, with pro-China or pro-unification forces. This narrative risks undermining the credibility of the pro-Taiwan camp by conflating “Trump skepticism” with “US skepticism.”
Illiberalism is on the rise. Attacks on the institutions that sustain liberal democracies are increasing both domestically and internationally. Taiwan faces daily threats from China, including cyberattacks, gray-zone tactics like undersea cable disruptions, and information warfare. Genuine US skepticism, fueled by Chinese and Russian influence operations, is infiltrating global discourse.
At this critical juncture, the cost of this growing schism is something those who value Taiwan’s democracy cannot afford. It is one thing to debate how best to bolster Taiwan’s liberal democracy, it is another to brand those who oppose Trump’s illiberalism as traitors to the pro-Taiwan cause.
An intervention from Taiwan’s ruling party may be necessary. Perhaps not from the executive branch directly, but from a unifying body, to offer a clear strategy for managing US-Taiwan relations.
A well-articulated stance that addresses the concerns of both pro- and anti-Trump factions could help de-escalate tensions and restore focus on Taiwan’s broader strategic interests.
