The Logical Connection between the American Institute in Taiwan's Remarks, the Deployment of the Typhon Missile System in Japan, and Trump's New Defense Strategy Draft

On September 12, a spokesperson from the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) responded to an inquiry from Taiwanese media, stating, "China (Mainland) is deliberately distorting World War II-era documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty), attempting to support its coercive actions toward Taiwan. These documents do not determine Taiwan's ultimate political status. The false legal narrative is part of Beijing’s broader actions, aiming to isolate Taiwan from the international community and limit other countries' sovereignty in their interactions with Taiwan." A spokesperson from the U.S. State Department confirmed on September 15 in a statement to Voice of America that AIT had made an "accurate" interpretation.

Previously, the Trump administration released a draft of its 2025 National Defense Strategy, which proposed a strategic shift prioritizing "homeland defense" and a reduction in military focus on China. It emphasized resource allocation to hemispheric security and cyberspace warfare, downplaying China as a military threat. How does AIT's statement relate to or conflict with the Trump administration's new defense strategy draft?

Simultaneously, during the U.S.-Japan "Dragon Determination 2025" military exercises in Japan, the U.S. deployed the Typhon missile system for the first time in the country. This system can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and Standard SM-6 missiles, covering the Taiwan Strait and China's coastal regions. The deployment drew strong protests from China, demanding its removal. This move seems to contradict Trump’s new defense strategy, which advocates for strategic retrenchment, but is there an underlying logic where these actions might support each other?

Recently, U.S.-China negotiations have entered a "hot phase," with both sides resuming high-level contact and multichannel talks. Apart from the alignment or misalignment with Trump’s new defense strategy, could AIT’s statement (as part of a diplomatic power struggle) also be related to the intensifying diplomatic and trade talks between the U.S. and China, raising bargaining chips on both sides?

What are the underlying logical connections and strategic relationships between AIT's latest statement, the U.S. deployment of the Typhon missile system in Japan, the ongoing U.S.-China negotiations, and the release of Trump’s new defense strategy draft? These events may appear contradictory on the surface, but in fact, there is a logical connection.

The Mismatch in Priorities Between Strategic Retrenchment and AIT Diplomatic and Legal Warfare

From the perspectives of shifting strategic priorities, discourse and legal warfare, and changes in the Indo-Pacific geopolitical structure, the AIT spokesperson’s remarks and the Trump administration’s 2025 National Defense Strategy draft show both "conflicting and aligned elements."

The AIT spokesperson clearly took a stance against China's legal narrative regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty, denying the decisive role of the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation in Taiwan’s political status, and emphasizing "Taiwan's international space" and the "sovereign rights of other countries to engage with Taiwan."

The main content of the 2025 Trump administration’s defense strategy draft is based on "homeland defense first" and "hemispheric security," significantly downplaying the priority of "strategic competition" or "military threats" from China, indicating a tendency toward "global retrenchment" or "strategic inwardness."

The AIT statement and the Trump administration’s new defense strategy draft show a "disalignment in strategic priorities." The new defense strategy emphasizes military strategic "retrenchment," while AIT emphasizes a diplomatic and legal warfare "outreach."

AIT’s statement continues the "Indo-Pacific strategy framework" of the Biden administration, focusing on China’s "legal warfare," "information warfare," and "coercive diplomacy," presenting a posture of global "rule order defense." However, the Trump administration’s new defense strategy advocates for an "inward focus," reducing military resources allocated to the Indo-Pacific, especially the Taiwan Strait, potentially weakening the "security commitment" or "deterrence" regarding Taiwan’s security.

In other words, AIT’s remarks represent a political posture and diplomatic signal, while Trump’s new defense strategy draft reflects practical considerations for resource allocation. The focus of both is inconsistent, creating an inherent tension.

However, there are points of alignment between AIT's remarks and the Trump administration's new defense strategy. Both continue to focus on non-military competition between the U.S. and China. Despite downplaying military concerns, AIT’s emphasis on the "legal narrative dispute" indicates that the Trump administration is still unwilling to relinquish its discourse framework countering China’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Even amid military retrenchment, the U.S. will continue to compete with China in legal, economic, diplomatic, and cognitive spheres.

Legal warfare is a "low-cost, high-return" diplomatic tool, well-suited for achieving "limited goals" during strategic retrenchment periods. The Trump administration may "step back" militarily, but "step forward" in legal and diplomatic warfare, to maintain influence over the Taiwan Strait at a lower cost.

Looking at the broader shift in U.S. strategy toward China, the likely future trend is: 1) The AIT and State Department will maintain traditional "Taiwan support" postures, even as the presidential strategic focus turns inward; 2) The U.S. will continue to reinforce non-military support for Taiwan (in technology, economics, law, and supply chains); 3) The gap between the "posture and commitment" and "action capacity" of the U.S. on Taiwan may widen.

While AIT’s spokesperson continues to reinforce Taiwan’s international legal legitimacy, there is a clear "disallocation of discourse and resources" when compared to the Trump administration’s emphasis on "homeland priority." This indicates that, even as legal and diplomatic warfare continues, the U.S.'s actual security guarantees for Taiwan may become "limited commitments" or "non-military participation."

AIT's Statement Indicates Trump Administration's "Toughness Amid Retrenchment"

The statement made by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)—asserting that the "status of Taiwan remains undecided"—is not only part of the U.S. and Beijing’s ongoing struggle for diplomatic discourse and legal authority but also relates to the recent intensification of U.S.-China diplomatic and trade negotiations, where both sides raise their bargaining chips. The Taiwan issue is the "most lethal factor" in U.S.-China relations—it is not only the core of mutual strategic distrust but also the most easily manipulated variable in diplomatic and trade negotiations to "raise the stakes" or "set limits." AIT’s statement (a "diplomatic counterattack") could be seen as the U.S. attempting to add leverage to its diplomatic and economic talks with China.

The Taiwan issue is a sensitive matter that serves as both a "lever" and a "red line" in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. views Taiwan as a "strategic asset," and Taiwan, as a lever, is not only a critical part of the Indo-Pacific chain but also a significant chip in the U.S.-China competition regarding technology, values, and geopolitics. For the U.S., Taiwan holds tremendous "strategic value" in trade negotiations, diplomatic balancing, and global supply chain restructuring. As a "red line," China considers Taiwan a core sovereign interest, and any challenge to "Taiwan independence," "international recognition," or "military support for Taiwan independence forces" is seen as crossing a bottom line. For Beijing, the Taiwan issue is "non-negotiable" (yet often pulled into a "negotiable" framework, which escalates the risk of conflict).

Recently, U.S.-China negotiations have entered a "hot phase," with both sides resuming high-level contact and multichannel talks. In the second half of 2025, U.S.-China trade talks have been restarted or accelerated, with a particular focus on strategic materials, technology restrictions, market access, AI regulations, and the TikTok agreement. To extend the suspended tariff agreements and monitor the implementation of trade agreements, meetings have been held in Stockholm, London, and Madrid. U.S. and Chinese delegations, including deputy foreign ministers and business representatives, have begun intensifying mutual visits. On September 19, Trump also had a conversation with Xi Jinping, finalizing the framework agreement reached during the Madrid talks on TikTok.

At the same time, verbal confrontations across the Taiwan Strait have intensified, creating a "synchronized battlefield." AIT’s statements regarding the Cairo Declaration, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and other legal documents reflect a legal and historical "cognitive war." Beijing has also been strengthening its propaganda around the "non-negotiability of the One China principle," emphasizing that "Taiwan is an internal issue and cannot be used as a diplomatic bargaining chip."

As U.S.-China negotiations are re-engaging, the Taiwan issue is being used as a "tool to raise negotiation leverage." For instance, through statements by AIT and other symbolic "pro-Taiwan" actions, the U.S. seeks to "shape a dominant posture" on Taiwan: pressuring Beijing to acknowledge that the U.S. still holds a leading role on the Taiwan issue; demonstrating to allies that the U.S. is not "backing down" on China-related issues; and sending a domestic message that the Trump administration is "remaining tough amid retrenchment."

The Taiwan issue remains both an "irreconcilable fundamental contradiction" between the U.S. and China and a "lever tool" in their strategic competition. Whenever either side wants to raise its negotiation chips, the Taiwan issue is "amplified," making the situation extremely fragile.

The Taiwan issue is being "non-militarily politicized to a high degree," becoming a discourse tool in strategic negotiations. However, this also means the likelihood of Taiwan becoming a risk trigger point is increasing, especially during a phase where both sides want to "amplify their positions through rhetoric."

From the U.S. policy perspective, even though the Trump administration is overall strategically retrenching, it will not "completely retreat" on the Taiwan issue. Taiwan still offers "symbolic value" (as a partner in freedom and democracy), a high-tech control point (especially in semiconductor manufacturing by TSMC), and a geopolitical leverage tool (in coordinating positions with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia on China-related issues). Therefore, AIT's statement is a "low-cost method of maintaining geopolitical influence."

The Taiwan issue is both the anchor point of U.S.-China strategic mistrust and the preferred bargaining chip before every round of negotiations. In AIT's statement, we see the Trump administration using the Taiwan issue to raise the starting point for negotiations in non-military areas in the new negotiation cycle.

The Deployment of the Typhon System Is Not "Strategic Expansion," But "Proxy Forward Deterrence" Under Cost Optimization

The deployment of the Typhon system is not a "strategic expansion," but rather a "proxy frontier deterrent" under cost optimization.

The U.S. has for the first time deployed the Typhon medium-range missile system in Japan. On the surface, this seems to contradict the "strategic retrenchment" defense strategy outlined by the Trump administration, but in reality, there is a certain complementary function and practical compromise behind it. This can be seen in the strategic contradictions, supporting logic, theater arrangements, and resource efficiency aspects of the deployment.

The apparent contradiction between the deployment of the Typhon missile system and the new defense strategy lies in the tension between "strategic retrenchment vs. forward military deployments." The Trump administration’s draft defense strategy advocates for strategic retrenchment, which emphasizes "homeland defense first," prioritizes "American sovereignty and security," downplays the military threat from China, reduces the cost of overseas troops, and shifts focus to southern borders, cyber warfare, space defense, and security in the Western Hemisphere. It rejects the role of "endless global policeman." However, the forward deployment of the Typhon system represents an unusual move: the deployment of an offensive land-based long-range missile system for the first time on Japanese soil. This system can target areas around Taiwan and China's southeastern coastal regions (with a strike range of 1,600–2,500 km), clearly countering China’s "Anti-Access/Area Denial" (A2/AD) strategy, provoking strong diplomatic and military reactions from China, and even protests threatening countermeasures. While this clearly seems at odds with the "strategic retrenchment" concept, why is the U.S. talking about "strategic retrenchment" while deploying such an aggressively offensive system in the Asia-Pacific?

The deployment of the Typhon system is not equivalent to "strategic expansion," but rather a "proxy forward deterrence" strategy under cost optimization. This reflects the Trump administration's logic of "limited cost, maximum deterrence."

The deployment of land-based medium-range missiles is a cost-effective means of forward deterrence. Compared to aircraft carrier strike groups, F-35 rotations, or regular air patrols, the Typhon system is lower in cost, quicker to respond, and more powerful in its strike capabilities. It serves as a new option for countering China's A2/AD system, without excessive reliance on expensive naval and air platforms. Although the Trump administration opposed "expensive long-term deployments," this does not mean abandoning "strategic trump cards." Strategic retrenchment does not equate to abandoning deterrence, but rather emphasizes high cost-performance in deploying "strike assets."

This move also reflects the idea of strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance and having allies share more of the responsibility. Japan provides some logistical, communication, and command support for this deployment, marking a new strategic layout where "U.S. military technology is the core, and allies serve as base points." Trump has consistently advocated for "allies paying more," which aligns with his expectations for Japan's role. The deployment of the Typhon system in Japan is more of a "U.S. military platform + allied territory + shared risk" strategic outsourcing model.

Moreover, the Typhon system’s deployment is also a bargaining chip rather than preparation for war. At a time when U.S.-China diplomatic and trade negotiations are being revitalized, the deployment of the Typhon missile system serves as a form of diplomatic pressure, designed to deter China's aggressive actions. It acts as a "physical warning" to gain leverage in negotiations and suppress "strategic gray zone" actions. This is a typical Trump-style tactic—using "terrible options" to increase the negotiation price.

From the perspective of mutual logic and coherence, the deployment of the Typhon system reflects "limited strike capability" and serves as a "precise deterrent tool" under strategic retrenchment. The system’s strategic objectives and tactical deployments are as follows: avoiding endless wars, preventing long-term overseas troop deployments (the Typhon deployment is "short-term/flexible" rather than a permanent base); reducing costs and alleviating the burden on aircraft carriers and air forces (maintenance and operational costs for the Typhon system are much lower than for naval and air forces); maintaining deterrence while improving precision strike capabilities (aligning with the "small force, big effect" deployment concept); leveraging allied support (Japan bears the geographic risk and part of the logistical load); and using it as a negotiation tool in U.S.-China talks to increase leverage (military deployment as a "non-war negotiation pressure point").

Politically, the deployment of this system reflects Trump’s "offensive-defense integrated strategic ambiguity" logic. Trump’s strategy consistently emphasizes: "I won’t send troops, but don’t think I’m soft"; "I will cut spending, but I’ll keep the ability to hit you"; "I don’t want war, but I’ll make you think I’m about to fight." Therefore, deploying a deterrent system like Typhon fits perfectly with Trump’s "soft but hard" strategic ambiguity.

However, the U.S. "strategic ambiguity + weapon deployment" also carries risks, as it could potentially make the situation more dangerous. While this deployment follows a logical pattern, it may result in the following outcomes: 1) China may misjudge the U.S. military’s readiness to enter a war; 2) Taiwan or Japan might misjudge that the U.S. would intervene militarily, prompting reckless decisions; 3) U.S.-China diplomatic space may shrink further, leading to misunderstandings that escalate the situation into friction or conflict.

In conclusion, the Typhon deployment and the new defense strategy may appear contradictory on the surface, but in fact, it represents a new combined strategy of "tactical retrenchment + precise deployment." While the Trump administration emphasizes strategic retrenchment, the deployment of the Typhon missile system aims to achieve the goal of "maintaining strategic deterrence and negotiation leverage at the lowest cost," embodying a "deterrence equals victory" strategy that does not rely on large-scale permanent troop deployments.

U.S. New Strategic Logic: Maintaining Geopolitical Influence with "Low-Cost, High-Efficiency" Methods

In conclusion, the recent statements made by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the 2025 U.S. defense strategy draft under the Trump administration exhibit both a misalignment of strategic focus and a complementary logic in different domains. Overall, the U.S. has continued to exhibit a combination of strategic retrenchment and limited commitments in its policy toward China, emphasizing the maintenance of support for Taiwan through diplomatic, legal, and economic means while engaging in a struggle for influence with China. However, the Trump administration has not fully abandoned its deterrence capabilities, particularly with the deployment of the "Typhon missile system" in the Asia-Pacific, reflecting a strategy of more efficient military deployment aimed at ensuring strategic containment of China without expanding military conflict.

These dynamics suggest that while the U.S. military strategy appears to be shrinking, it still maintains a hard stance on Taiwan, utilizing a "proxy forward deterrence" and "precision strikes" approach to sustain its geopolitical influence with low cost and high efficiency. In the complex and volatile context of U.S.-China relations, Taiwan remains not only the core of strategic competition but also a frequent bargaining chip in negotiations. Through political "posturing" and "legal warfare" over the Taiwan issue, the U.S. has reinforced Taiwan’s status as an important strategic asset.

However, this combination of "strategic ambiguity + weapon deployment" carries inherent risks, potentially leading to misjudgments and escalating tensions. Whether in the rhetoric used by the U.S. on Taiwan or the deployment of the Typhon system, both reflect a "soft yet hard" strategic framework. This contradictory strategic logic helps the U.S. maintain its influence over Taiwan, but it also risks further straining U.S.-China relations in the absence of effective communication.

Therefore, in the future U.S.-China rivalry, Taiwan will remain a critical node in the power struggle. How well the U.S. can balance strategic retrenchment with effective deterrence and navigate diplomatic and military means to avoid misunderstandings and prevent the escalation of conflict will, to a large extent, determine the security and stability of the region going forward.