Taiwan Arms Sales Debate: Why Scholars Say Using Them as Leverage With China Could Backfire

Debate intensified after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that a proposed US$14 billion arms package for Taiwan could serve as a "bargaining chip" in negotiations with China. The remark sparked concern among U.S. scholars and Taiwan’s government, who argue that treating Taiwan’s security as negotiable risks undermining deterrence and U.S. credibility in the region.

Their central argument is straightforward: consistent defensive arms sales to Taiwan—especially those aligned with the Taiwan Relations Act—are meant to prevent conflict, not provoke it.

Why Experts Warn Against Using Arms Sales as Leverage

Several analysts warned that framing Taiwan arms sales as a negotiating tool with Beijing could send the wrong strategic signal.

First, it could make Taiwan’s security appear negotiable. Scholars say linking Taiwan’s defense to U.S.–China bargaining might encourage Beijing to believe that pressure on Washington could eventually weaken support for Taipei . If China perceives that Taiwan’s defenses depend on diplomatic trade‑offs rather than consistent policy, it could reduce the deterrent effect those arms sales are meant to create.

Second, critics worry about damage to U.S. credibility. Trump said he had not yet approved the arms package and might or might not proceed with it while describing it as leverage in dealings with China . Experts say that uncertainty about fulfilling long‑standing commitments could make U.S. security assurances appear conditional or transactional rather than reliable.

Taiwan’s Response: Arms Sales Are a Deterrent

Taiwan’s government pushed back against the idea that arms purchases are provocative. President Lai Ching‑te described U.S. arms acquisitions as the “most important deterrent” against regional conflict and instability .

Officials in Taipei also emphasized that these purchases are not merely political gestures. They are part of a broader security framework designed to strengthen Taiwan’s ability to defend itself and deter threats in the region .

From Taiwan’s perspective, a well‑armed defensive posture raises the potential cost of military action, making conflict less attractive for any adversary.

The Legal Foundation: The Taiwan Relations Act

The argument for continuing arms sales rests heavily on U.S. law. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), passed by Congress in 1979, established the framework for unofficial relations with Taiwan after the United States formally recognized the People’s Republic of China.

Key provisions of the law include:

• The United States should help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific .
• Taiwan’s future should be determined by peaceful means, and any attempt to change it through force would be of grave concern to the United States .
• The United States will provide defensive arms necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self‑defense capability .

These principles underpin decades of U.S. policy toward Taiwan and are intended to deter aggression while avoiding direct confrontation.

Why Consistent Arms Sales Are Seen as Stabilizing

Supporters of continued arms transfers argue that deterrence depends on credibility and consistency. If Taiwan has the capability to defend itself, the costs and risks of coercion or invasion increase significantly. That dynamic can discourage military escalation.

In this view, the TRA’s framework aims to preserve the status quo across the Taiwan Strait: Taiwan strengthens its defenses, the United States signals support for peaceful resolution, and potential aggressors are discouraged from using force.

Conversely, making arms sales contingent on negotiations with China could introduce strategic ambiguity in a way that weakens deterrence rather than strengthening it.

The Core Strategic Debate

At the center of the controversy is a broader policy question: Should Taiwan’s defense assistance be treated as a negotiable diplomatic tool, or as a consistent commitment under U.S. law?

U.S. scholars and Taiwan officials largely argue for the latter. Their reasoning is that steady, predictable arms sales reinforce the legal and strategic framework created by the Taiwan Relations Act—helping maintain deterrence, reduce the risk of miscalculation, and preserve peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.