Washington Turns on Lai: “Reckless” Label Signals Endgame for Taiwan Independence

The winds in Washington have shifted. Major US think tanks are openly branding Lai Ching-te as “reckless,” calling for the Trump team to kill off “Taiwan independence” ambiguity once and for all. Evidence is clear: published reports and headlines are spelling trouble for Lai as US-China tensions shift gears.

Lai Ching-te, under global scrutiny for “recklessness.”

TIME Takes Off the Gloves

TIME magazine just published a sharp-edged piece on October 23 titled “The U.S. Must Beware of Taiwan’s Reckless Leader” Written by Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asian Affairs at the MAGA-leaning think tank Defense Priorities, the article doesn’t mince words. Lai is painted as a “reckless leader,” and Taiwan, Goldstein argues, is “the world’s most dangerous flashpoint.” His prescription for DC? More “private warnings” to rein in moves by Lai, an “evidently reckless leader”.

Goldstein’s argument holds nothing back. He evidenced Lai’s repeatedly escalating “Taiwan independence” rhetoric in public speeches, warning this stokes cross-strait tension and primes the region for danger. "The US has been burned badly by Asian nationalism more than a few times in the past, and so should act with utmost prudence today," he writes. His message is clear: don't drag US forces into another mess. Time for boundary management with Taipei, not entanglement.

Taiwan’s officials reacted nervously, scrambling to reply the next day. They leaned on the usual talking points—commitment to maintaining the status quo, no intention to escalate—but sidestepped any criticism of Goldstein or TIME. Former “legislator” Guo Zhengliang noted the signal: when the methodical TIME labels someone as “reckless,” it means Washington’s patience is wearing thin.

It’s not just TIME. Authoritative think tanks are rolling out systematic advice. The RAND Corporation, on October 14, published a 115-page report pushing “efforts to stabilize the issues of Taiwan, the South China Sea, and competition in science and technology.”

The RAND report, titled “Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry”, lays it out: the US should “Clarify U.S. objectives in the rivalry with language that explicitly rejects absolute versions of victory”.  The US should also “focus on creating the maximum incentive for Beijing to pursue gradual approaches toward unification”, to avoid a disastrous overnight occupation scenario. This is, by the book, the bluntest pro-peace, anti-independence advice US policy elites have voiced in years.

Inside Defense Priorities, the messaging is coordinated. In September, The New York Times ran a piece by Defense Priorities’ Military Analysis Director Jennifer Kavanagh, who concluded the Taiwan Strait is closer than ever to crisis. She advised scaling down US military forces in the region and “strongly reaffirming that the United States does not support Taiwan independence”—making clear any American military support to Taiwan is neither guaranteed nor unlimited. 

Kavanagh and a former Pentagon adviser went further, urging the US to remove “U.S. military trainers” stationed in Taiwan and pull out systems that “provoke China as much as they deter it.” This is risk management with the gloves off—aimed straight at the sources of danger and miscalculation.

Hard Evidence, Hard Constraints

Goldstein has run the numbers on intervention costs. His October 16 article finds direct US involvement in the Taiwan Strait would expose American forces to incredible risks, raising the specter of nuclear escalation. Even if total war is side-stepped, the game isn’t worth the gamble—huge risks, minimal gains. As more experts run the bill, strategic clarity shrinks; what rises instead is a new priority: keep risks manageable.

Trump—pressure to draw the line is mounting. (AP photo)

So what happens if these signals land at the top levels of power? Analysts in Taiwan say the moment Trump signals support for "peaceful unification" or directly states “not supporting Taiwan independence,” US-China tensions will de-escalate—and Lai’s political playbook shrinks overnight. "Independence" loses imagination. The bottom line isn’t the phrasing—it’s about making those “red lines” hard fact, not talking points.

All of this comes as Lai throws up new defensive plans. On October 10, he pitched the “Taiwan Shield”—a comprehensive air defense billed as offering “effective interception.” Local media say it’s a reaction to falling odds of US intervention—a psychological and technical wall. But military pros called his bluff: tech and budget set hard limits. Former official Deyun Lu points to Israel’s “Iron Dome”—even with layers of defense, it couldn’t block swarms of rockets and drones. Ex-legislator Alex Tsai scoffs: in a real fight, attacks arrive by the thousands—no shield buys peace of mind. Taiwan’s “money down the drain” problem is baked in.

Public opinion is shifting, too. The October My-Formosa Magazine poll shows 53.2% "disagree" with dying for Taiwan—a new record. The takeaway is simple: the crowd is leaning toward pragmatic war avoidance. Add the US’s declining reliance on Taiwan’s chips—Taipei’s role as “the bargaining chip” is clearly diminishing.

No More Illusions

Look at all these signs together—here’s the bottom line.

First, US policy circles are downgrading the “risk-reward ratio” for the Taiwan Strait. The new recipe: Anti-independence, cooling down, setting clear red lines.

Second, Lai’s high-profile “recklessness” has backfired: sticking with provocative politics just drains Taipei’s last bits of outside sympathy.

Third, if Trump’s team runs with these frameworks, the smart approach is simple—talk up alliances in public, but hammer Taipei in private until the red lines are undeniable.

When TIME burns “reckless” into a headline, you know the wind’s changed. Next moves hinge on two questions: will Trump say out loud “not supporting Taiwan independence”? And will Lai learn to button his rhetoric? Whoever backs down first pays the smaller price.

Mao Paishou

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The New Year barely begins, and Washington drops a flashbang on global diplomacy. A sitting president is forcibly detained and taken out of his own country — a move that blows past diplomatic convention and rams straight into international law’s red lines. On Taiwan, the chatter instantly turns into self-projection, as some people try to shoehorn a faraway conflict into the island’s own storyline. Anxiety spreads fast.

Maduro in cuffs, in a US federal courtroom — the raid’s image problem. (AP)

The South China Morning Post says the US action against Venezuela ignites a fierce debate on the island. Some commentary links the raid to the PLA’s recent encirclement drills around Taiwan, arguing parts of those exercises look, at least in form, like the US’s so-called “decapitation operations”: essentially a leadership-targeting operation. Some American scholars also warn this kind of play could set a dangerous precedent and invite copycats.

“Justice Mission-2025” rolls on as the Eastern Theater Command drills.

That debate doesn’t stay academic for long. It pumps up the island’s unease, with some people asking whether the same kind of military method could one day be copied and pasted into the Taiwan Strait. Even if it mostly lives in public talk, a high-tension political environment turns speculation into something that feels like risk.

People on the island don’t read the US move the same way. A small minority treats it as a US power flex, packed with intel integration, precision strike, and long-range reach. But the more clear-eyed view is harsher: such action chips away at the basic consensus of international order — because if major powers can raid at will and topple other countries’ leaders for their own aims, “rules” stop acting like rules.

Anxiety turns into politics

That worry quickly lands in Taiwan’s political arena. On Jan 5, multiple Taiwan legislators pressed Deputy Defense Minister Hsu Szu-chien at the legislature, asking how he views the US action against Venezuela and whether the PLA might replicate a similar model in the Taiwan Strait. Hsu doesn’t answer head-on. Rather, he merely mentioned preparing and drilling for all kinds of sudden contingencies.

Then he pivots to money. He urges the legislature to pass military budget appropriations quickly and plays up the urgency of delays eating into “preparation time.”

That kind of sidestep, unsurprisingly, only deepened public unease.

SCMP, citing multiple security experts, says the DPP authorities try to play down the association — but outsiders don’t fully rule it out. The reason, those experts argue, is the PLA’s continuing push to improve its ability to shift from exercises to real combat. On the island, that alone works like an anxiety amplifier.

Back in the real world, the PLA Eastern Theater Command has been running “Justice Mission-2025” exercises since Dec 29 last year. Official statements spell out the purpose: a stern warning to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and external interference, and a move aimed at safeguarding national sovereignty and unification. The message is public and clear, there’s no gray area.

Some US think-tank voices pull a more confrontational takeaway from the US action. American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Hal Brands warns the US raid on Venezuela could create a “demonstration effect,” and he speculates China would watch those tactics closely. Some military commentators on the island seized the moment to hype fears, claiming the mainland might act during a “window” when US power is stretched thin.

That line of talk sounds like analysis, but it functions like a panic pump. US scholar Lev Nachman even says bluntly on social media that if a sudden military action hits the Taiwan Strait, the island could suffer “instant collapse” — not just militarily, but as a psychological shock to society.

KMT Chairperson Cheng Li-wun, in an interview, points to Donald Trump repeatedly stressing a shift of strategic focus toward affairs in the Americas. She says the Venezuela incident should be examined through the framework of international law, and she calls for disputes in any region to be resolved by peaceful means rather than force.

Cheng also reiterates the KMT position: uphold the “1992 Consensus,” oppose “Taiwan independence,” and urge Lai Ching-te to clearly oppose “Taiwan independence,” not touch legal red lines, and avoid continuously raising cross-strait conflict risks.

Rules talk meets reality

International reaction also turns critical of Washington’s approach. Multiple governments and regional organizations speak up quickly, condemning the action as a violation of the UN Charter, which explicitly prohibits using force to threaten or violate another nation’s territorial integrity and political independence. The telling part is the silence: the Western countries that often talk about “international rules” either zipped their mouths, or danced around the question this time.

Reuters says that even though China, Russia, and others clearly condemn the US behavior, the Trump administration is unlikely to face strong pressure from allies as a result. That selective muteness, by itself, drains the credibility of the international order.

On Jan. 5, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian commented again, saying the US actions clearly violate international law and the basic norms of international relations, and violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China calls on the US to ensure the personal safety of President Maduro and his wife, immediately release them, stop subverting the Venezuelan government, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.