Statements by the Biden administration about U.S. policy toward Taiwan have taken on a very disturbing pattern. The latest episode occurred on October 21 during a CNN town hall session when the president was asked whether the United States would defend Taiwan from an attack by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).


Biden responded unhesitatingly: “Yes, we have a commitment.” He flatly misstated what U.S. policy has been since Washington established formal diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1979 and adopted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to clarify economic and cultural ties with Taiwan.

The TRA commits the United States only to sell Taiwan “defensive” weapons and to regard any PRC attack on the island as a serious “breach of the peace” of East Asia. It emphatically did not obligate the United States to defend Taiwan with its own military forces. Moreover, U.S. officials over the decades have stated repeatedly that Washington endorses a “one China” policy, and whenever questioned, they have described U.S. policy as one of “strategic ambiguity.”

Biden’s statement eliminated any hint of ambiguity. More accurately, it would have done so, if members of his administration had not spent the next several days scrambling to “clarify” his comment and insist that there had been no change in U.S. policy. “He wasn’t announcing a change in policy nor have we changed our policy,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. “We are guided by the Taiwan Relations Act.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also insisted that the United States remained committed to the one China policy and the provisions of the TRA.

Sending such mixed messages angers Beijing and sows dangerous confusion in a volatile region of the world. Moreover, it is not the first time that the president and his advisers have not been on the same page about U.S. policy toward Taiwan.


During an August interview with ABC News, host George Stephanopoulos asked Biden if Washington’s allies could still rely on U.S. protection in light of the disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden responded by stating, “We made a sacred commitment to Article Five that if in fact, anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond.” The same alliance had been forged with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, he added.

Insisting that Washington’s vague security relationship with Taiwan is the same as the explicit U.S. defense obligations specified in the North Atlantic Treaty and the bilateral treaties with Japan and South Korea was wildly inaccurate. On that occasion, as with the October episode, Biden’s advisers worked to walk back the president’s indiscreet statement. The next day, U.S. officials rushed to assure Beijing and other countries that U.S. policy toward Taiwan issue had not changed, despite Biden’s comment.

The Biden foreign policy team has been disturbingly gaffe-prone regarding a host of international matters. However, sending mixed messages on the ultra-sensitive Taiwan issue is intolerable. If the president wishes to change U.S. policy from one of strategic ambiguity to one of (belligerent) strategic clarity, he needs to make his advisers aware of that shift, so that they stop contradicting him.


However, such a monumental policy change should occur only after a rigorous public debate about the increased risks of a war with China, and after explicit congressional action to revise the TRA. If, on the other hand, Biden simply is guilty of verbal incontinence, he needs to stop talking about Taiwan entirely.