John Bolton Warns Trump May Trade Taiwan’s Interests for China Deal

Former U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton has raised new concerns about former President Donald Trump’s approach to China, warning that Trump could sacrifice Taiwan’s strategic interests in pursuit of an ambitious trade agreement. Speaking in a recent interview, Bolton suggested that Trump’s overriding desire to secure what he perceives as the "biggest trade deal in history" might lead him to compromise longstanding U.S. commitments in the Taiwan Strait, potentially destabilizing East Asia and reshaping global geopolitical dynamics.

Bolton’s Warning on U.S. Priorities

Bolton, who served as national security adviser from 2018 to 2019, portrayed Trump as driven primarily by personal victory andsuccess rather than by strategic consistency. He said Trump "views the world through a transactional lens," caring more about immediate deals than long-term alliances or the stability of democratic partners.

This view, Bolton argued, could lead the former president to concede ground on Taiwan in negotiations with Beijing, especially if an economic package or agricultural export deal appears within reach. According to Bolton, Trump’s past focus on restoring soybean exports during the U.S.-China trade war exemplifies his tendency to prioritize domestic political optics over regional security commitments.

David Rennie, the geopolitics editor of The Economist and an observer of U.S.-China relations, echoed similar concerns, stating that Trump’s motivations appear rooted in achieving a “signature” agreement that enhances his image as a dealmaker rather than balancing the wider consequences for U.S. foreign policy.

The Fragile Balance Across the Taiwan Strait

Bolton’s comments come at a time when tensions across the Taiwan Strait remain high. China has significantly increased its military activity near Taiwan in recent years, deploying aircraft and naval vessels in record numbers. The People’s Liberation Army’s exercises, often timed to coincide with major U.S. visits or statements of support for Taipei, underscore Beijing’s resolve to assert sovereignty claims over the self-governing island.

For Taipei, continued American support has been essential to maintaining deterrence. Successive U.S. administrations—both Republican and Democratic—have upheld the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which obligates the United States to provide Taiwan with defensive arms and maintain the capacity to resist coercion. However, Washington’s consistent attention to Taiwan’s security has often intertwined with broader trade and diplomatic calculations involving Beijing.

Bolton’s assertion that Trump might trade strategic assurances for economic gains revives longstanding fears among Taiwanese officials that their security could be overshadowed by macroeconomic priorities in Washington.

Historical Context: The U.S.-China-Taiwan Equation

The triangular relationship between the United States, China, and Taiwan has long been defined by careful balancing acts. Since 1979, when Washington formally recognized the People’s Republic of China, American administrations have walked a fine line—acknowledging Beijing’s “One China” policy while simultaneously supporting Taiwan’s democratic institutions and defense capabilities.

Under Trump, that balance shifted dramatically. His administration was marked by both unprecedented arms sales to Taiwan and direct confrontations with China on trade and technology. While some analysts credited Trump for deepening Taiwan’s strategic value in Washington, others noted that his unpredictable approach often muddled long-term strategy.

Bolton’s perspective mixes both observations. Having witnessed Trump’s decision-making firsthand, he described the former president as “transactional and impulsive,” someone who might use Taiwan as a bargaining chip rather than a strategic partner.

Economic Stakes and the Lure of a Grand Deal

The attraction of a massive trade pact with China should not be underestimated. During his first term, Trump faced immense pressure to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, which approached nearly $350 billion annually. He imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods, triggering retaliatory measures that hurt American farmers—particularly soybean and corn producers in the Midwest.

Trump eventually secured what he branded as the “Phase One” trade deal in January 2020, in which China pledged to purchase more American products, including agricultural commodities and manufactured goods. Yet those commitments fell short of expectations, and economic analysts noted that the deal largely failed to address deeper structural issues, such as state subsidies and intellectual property practices.

Bolton’s warning suggests that, in a future scenario where Beijing dangles the prospect of a “Phase Two” mega-deal involving hundreds of billions in trade, Trump may be tempted to recalibrate or scale back U.S. support for Taiwan in exchange for concrete economic wins that can be touted as personal triumphs.

Reaction from Asia and Strategic Implications

Bolton’s comments have already sparked concern among foreign-policy analysts in Taiwan and across the Asia-Pacific. Within Taipei, policymakers fear that overtures toward Beijing could undermine bipartisan support in Washington that has held firm for decades. Some warn that a perceived weakening of U.S. deterrence could embolden China to accelerate its military and diplomatic pressure campaigns.

Regional experts note that neighboring countries—particularly Japan and South Korea—are watching closely. Tokyo, which views Taiwan’s security as integral to its own, recently upgraded its defense spending and extended its missile systems in response to both China’s assertiveness and uncertainty in Washington’s long-term guarantees.

Comparatively, experts point to how U.S. engagement in the Philippines and Vietnam has fluctuated with changing administrations. Both countries have expanded cooperation with Washington on maritime security and trade, but their confidence in sustained American commitment remains fragile.

Broader Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy

Bolton’s critique feeds into a wider debate about how the United States should balance economic pragmatism against strategic integrity. While Trump’s supporters often highlight his focus on the U.S. economy and domestic manufacturing, critics argue that diplomacy based on transactional logic risks undermining America’s credibility as a global leader.

During past administrations, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, U.S. presidents maintained bipartisan consensus on Taiwan’s security without allowing economic competition with China to dictate strategic policy. Bolton contends that Trump’s approach diverges from that tradition, suggesting it prioritizes spectacle over substance.

Economically, experts warn that any signal of diminished U.S. commitment to Taiwan could unsettle global markets already sensitive to rising geopolitical risks. Taiwan is a critical hub for the semiconductor industry, producing more than 60 percent of the world’s chips and over 90 percent of its most advanced processors. Instability there would carry far-reaching consequences for industries spanning from automotive manufacturing to artificial intelligence.

The View from Beijing

Chinese officials have long accused the United States of “interfering in internal affairs” and supporting “separatist forces” in Taiwan. For Beijing, any U.S. concession or signal of reduced engagement would be interpreted as a diplomatic victory. Analysts note that Chinese leaders, under President Xi Jinping, have pursued a long-term strategy aimed at weakening regional confidence in U.S. reliability.

Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, has reiterated that Taiwan remains a “core national interest,” warning that foreign interference will invite “necessary countermeasures.” For Beijing, a trade negotiation that included symbolic or practical U.S. recognition of this position would mark a historic step toward its goal of reunification.

A Test of Principles and Power

Whether Bolton’s warnings will influence public attitudes or policymaking remains uncertain. But his remarks underscore an ongoing tension in U.S. foreign policy: the struggle between economic expedience and the defense of democratic allies. For Taiwan, a small island standing between Pacific democracy and authoritarian expansion, this balance carries existential weight.

U.S. political analysts note that American voters rarely prioritize Taiwan in domestic debates, a fact that could encourage a more transactional approach in any potential Trump negotiation with China. Yet diplomats across Asia warn that such a trade-off, however politically tempting in the short term, could irreversibly alter the regional order that has maintained peace for decades.

Conclusion: The Strategic Crossroads Ahead

Bolton’s statements have reignited questions about how America defines its global leadership role in an era of great-power competition. As tensions between Washington and Beijing shift from trade to technological and military arenas, the notion of trading sovereignty for soybeans evokes a symbolic dilemma—whether the United States will continue to defend its principles abroad or reduce them to negotiable terms on a balance sheet.

In the months ahead, the specter of a grand U.S.-China bargain will linger over Asia’s strategic horizon. For Taiwan, its people, and its partners, Bolton’s warning serves as both a cautionary forecast and a reminder of how quickly global power dynamics can hinge on a single leader’s definition of success.