During a critical diplomatic exchange last year near San Francisco, Chinese President Xi Jinping pressed U.S. President Joe Biden to make a key change to the language the United States uses to express its stance on Taiwan’s independence. According to two U.S. officials familiar with the private conversation, Xi’s request aimed at adjusting a single yet powerful statement on Taiwan that could ripple through Asia-Pacific diplomacy. The Chinese delegation urged Biden and his administration to revise official U.S. language to say, “We oppose Taiwan independence,” in contrast to the current language, which is that the United States “does not support” Taiwan independence.
The Biden administration, however, has held firm on keeping the original formulation, viewing the proposed change as a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. According to senior officials, the phraseology, though subtle, underscores a significant difference in diplomatic positioning and policy implications in a region under mounting pressure from China. A White House spokesperson affirmed in response to the ongoing requests from Beijing: “The Biden-Harris administration has been consistent on our long-standing One China policy,” effectively reaffirming Washington’s neutral stance on Taiwan’s political status without directly opposing or supporting its independence.
The unprecedented request from Beijing, brought forward at the highest level of diplomatic exchange, reflects how central Taiwan’s status has become to Xi’s domestic and international agenda. For years, China has made its opposition to Taiwanese independence a cornerstone of its foreign policy, backing it up with an increasing military presence in the Taiwan Strait. Beijing’s sustained efforts to press Washington on the language issue speak to a broader goal of shifting international sentiment and weakening support for Taiwan’s autonomy.
The sensitivity surrounding Taiwan is deep-rooted, stemming from its complex history. Following a civil war in 1949, the defeated Republic of China government fled to Taiwan as Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China. Today, Taiwan retains the name “Republic of China” and operates as a separate, democratically governed entity, a status quo that its government is unwilling to change, given Taiwan’s recognition as a de facto independent state. Meanwhile, Beijing asserts Taiwan as part of its territory and has not renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control, an outlook reinforced in Xi’s conversations with Biden.
The diplomatic importance of language is especially pronounced in U.S.-China relations over Taiwan, as the U.S. holds a pivotal role in Taiwan’s defense. Official relations between Washington and Taipei were severed in 1979, but the U.S. is bound by law to supply Taiwan with the means to defend itself. Beijing has consistently challenged the ambiguity of the U.S. position, seeking clarification, if not endorsement, of its stance against Taiwanese independence. Xi’s request to Biden is the latest and most direct of these appeals, revealing China’s concern over Washington’s continued military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.
Since the San Francisco meeting, Xi’s aides have made repeated follow-ups, encouraging the Biden administration to reconsider. However, U.S. officials have made it clear that a change in language is off the table. According to a senior Biden administration official, “Leaders in Beijing would love it if Joe Biden said very different things about Taiwan than he says, no doubt,” adding that Biden’s consistent phrasing around the Taiwan issue reflects a steadfast approach that maintains the balance of strategic ambiguity.
The Biden administration’s refusal to accede to China’s request is emblematic of the complex, carefully calibrated U.S. policy toward Taiwan. Known as “strategic ambiguity,” this approach aims to dissuade China from using force against Taiwan, while also cautioning Taiwan against declaring formal independence. Biden’s administration has repeatedly underscored this policy by maintaining the line that it “does not support” Taiwan independence while affirming the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense in practice.
For China, a U.S. commitment to the phrase “we oppose Taiwan independence” could serve as a major symbolic win, potentially signaling a shift in international consensus. Yet, the Biden administration sees the proposed language change as too risky, particularly in light of the military escalation around Taiwan in recent years. In recent months, China has staged unprecedented military drills near Taiwan, with a record-breaking 153 Chinese aircraft reported in Taiwanese airspace this month alone, in drills simulating blockades and port assaults.
Analysts in the Asia-Pacific region have indicated that even a subtle change in wording could be interpreted as a departure from the U.S. policy of supporting Taiwan’s self-determination. Officials from allied nations in the region privately conveyed concerns that a change from “does not support” to “opposes” Taiwanese independence might embolden Beijing’s aggressive posturing, potentially undermining regional stability. Two government officials from unnamed Asia-Pacific nations expressed that such a shift could be perceived as Washington leaning away from supporting Taiwan’s security and diplomatic aspirations, especially amid Beijing’s ongoing show of force.
To allies in Asia and beyond, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, a U.S. tilt toward opposition to Taiwan’s independence could mark a weakening of the U.S. commitment to countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. The question of Taiwan’s status is not only critical to China’s national interests but also to the broader Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. presence is widely viewed as a counterbalance to China’s growing assertiveness.
Moreover, any shift in language could affect the U.S.’s reputation as a partner committed to maintaining peace and stability through diplomacy. Such a move might lead Beijing to perceive the U.S. as more accepting of its “One China” policy, which asserts Taiwan as part of Chinese territory, and subsequently diminish U.S. influence across the region.
In Taiwan, public opinion strongly supports maintaining the status quo—neither seeking to join China nor establishing a new state formally. Polls indicate that most Taiwanese prefer this ambiguous position, an outlook likely influenced by the increasingly hostile military maneuvers from Beijing. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s government has refrained from making any formal comments on the recent language debate, focusing instead on preserving its standing as a self-governing entity. A statement from Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that Taiwan regards itself as a sovereign state, an assertion it has no plans to alter despite external pressures.
The longstanding independence debate raises questions about Taiwan’s international identity and security. Under the leadership of President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan has sought to bolster ties with the U.S. and other democratic allies without explicitly challenging the “One China” framework. While Taiwan continues to receive U.S. defense support under the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan’s leadership remains cautious in its rhetoric, aware that even slight shifts could lead to increased aggression from Beijing.
As the U.S. gears up for its next presidential election, the Taiwan issue remains a critical element of U.S.-China relations, one that Biden’s successor will inherit. President Biden is expected to have another conversation with Xi before his term concludes, possibly on the sidelines of upcoming international summits such as the G20 in Brazil and APEC in Peru. These meetings offer a forum for dialogue, yet experts doubt any substantive change in U.S. policy on Taiwan will occur.
For now, the Biden administration continues to affirm the “One China” policy without directly opposing Taiwan’s aspirations. With Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as potential successors, the Taiwan issue may take on new dimensions under different leadership. Harris has voiced support for Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities, whereas Trump previously took a harder stance on China’s influence in the region, leaving open the possibility that his return could bring more aggressive U.S. posturing on Taiwan.
For both Beijing and Washington, the stakes surrounding Taiwan extend beyond mere rhetoric; they involve strategic calculations for power in the Asia-Pacific and global order. A significant shift in U.S. language on Taiwan could strain alliances, influence military partnerships, and alter the balance of power in one of the world’s most economically vital regions.
By maintaining its position, the Biden administration underscores that any shift in Taiwan’s status should result from peaceful, mutually agreeable negotiations—a principle that echoes longstanding U.S. diplomatic strategy in East Asia. This approach seeks to avoid escalating tensions while reaffirming U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense and the region’s stability.
Xi’s repeated efforts to influence the language the U.S. uses reflect his administration’s larger goal to consolidate Chinese influence in Taiwan. However, as tensions continue to mount, it is clear that both China and the United States will need to carefully navigate the fine line between sovereignty, international diplomacy, and military power.
In the coming months, with further diplomatic engagements expected, all eyes will be on Washington’s stance and how it will continue to manage one of the most complex and volatile relationships in the world. Whether through diplomacy or deterrence, the U.S.-China dialogue on Taiwan’s future remains a delicate balance of language, policy, and power.
