A remarkable shift in US foreign policy unfolded last week, with potentially far-reaching consequences for global security. For the first time in nearly two decades, Washington issued a sharp and public rebuke to Taiwan.

The immediate trigger was the cancellation of President Lai Ching-te’s trip to Latin America, which had included planned stopovers in New York and Dallas. According to reports, the Trump administration instructed Lai to skip his US visits.

This marks a possible course correction in America’s stance toward Taipei. Lai’s grounded trip follows the suspension of another planned visit — by Taiwan’s defence minister, Wellington Koo, in June — which was reportedly scrapped after a Trump-Xi phone call. One report suggested the shift reflects Trump’s desire to “avoid antagonising China”.

That may well be true, but there’s likely more to the story. President Lai’s recent rhetoric has added an unnecessary layer of tension to already fraught cross-Strait relations. In recent months, Lai has been giving a series of 10 speeches on Taiwan’s history, identity, and nationhood. These risk-laden statements mark a brazen departure from the more moderate policies of Lai’s predecessor and have resulted in a series of sharp warnings from Beijing that started in late June. Most recently, the Chinese PLA spokesman remarked that members of Taiwan’s ruling DPP party are “willing to be ‘pawns’ and ultimately will become ‘sacrificed pawns’”.

It’s a muted reaction compared to the major show of force that occurred back in April 2025, when China held large-scale military exercises around Taiwan. The bottom line is that Washington has most likely seen these and other signals, understands the volatility of the situation, and is attempting to rein in this highly dangerous escalation.

Predictably, hawks in Washington are not happy. Matthew Pottinger, deputy national security adviser from the first Trump administration, complained, “Beijing will pocket this concession and ask for more”. Ely Ratner, who served as a senior Pentagon official in the Biden administration, similarly opined, “These concessions send a dangerous signal that America’s approach to Taiwan is negotiable”.

These hawks fail to understand that diplomacy involves compromise, setting priorities, and, above all, a responsible eye to the risks and potential costs of war. A compromise solution can and should be found regarding Taiwan. This has been done in the past and it can be done in the future.

“America First” cannot mean that this little island with a complex history and serious identity issues becomes the sine qua non of American strategy in the vast Asia-Pacific region and even globally. There are vital matters, not least the US-China trading relationship exceeding $600 billion annually, that should be prioritised over Taiwan.

More to the point, these hawks seem all too oblivious to the military risks involved in a Taiwan conflict. The most authoritative wargame of a Taiwan scenario predicts that the US would almost certainly lose two aircraft carriers during the first week of combat. Likewise, another detailed assessment by a veteran of the US Navy submarine force suggests that the result “might be large portions of the [American] Seventh Fleet at the bottom of the ocean”. That’s not even to broach the possible use of nuclear weapons in such a conflict.

For years, the US has been building up military forces in the western Pacific that include common warship transits of the Taiwan Strait. On the diplomatic side, Washington has regularly dispatched high-level official delegations to the island, engaged in rhetoric that suggests it has the right and will to intervene in a Taiwan conflict, encouraged allies to become involved in the dispute, built a thoroughly modern facility that functions as a de facto embassy at the cost of hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars, and even deployed American troops to the island.

A major course correction is now overdue. To preserve peace in the Asia-Pacific, Washington must act to restrain Taiwan’s growing push toward formal nationhood and independence.

There are signs this shift may already be underway — and rightly so. It aligns with a broader, long-needed pivot away from the destructive excesses of globalism and toward a more measured, “America First” approach to foreign and defence policy.