The Cynical Reframing of Taiwan: How Trump's NSS Exposes Western Imperialism's True Face

The Strategic Reorientation in Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy

The recently revealed Trump 2025 National Security Strategy represents a significant shift in how the United States frames its geopolitical priorities, particularly regarding Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region. Rather than continuing the Biden administration’s values-based approach that positioned Taiwan within a framework of democracy promotion and rules-based order, the new strategy performs what analysts term a “functional turn” - reframing Taiwan from a moral cause to a functional node in American economic and military architecture.

This strategic document establishes Taiwan’s importance primarily through its semiconductor dominance and critical role in the geopolitics of island chains, emphasizing access to the Second Island Chain and the ability to split Northeast and Southeast Asia into distinct theaters. The NSS explicitly connects this geography to tangible American economic interests, particularly the vulnerability of maritime commerce through the South China Sea, which carries “major implications” for the U.S. economy.

The language employed represents a deliberate departure from previous administrations. Where Biden’s 2022 NSS stated that the United States “opposes” unilateral changes to the status quo, Trump’s 2025 version says the United States “does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.” This semantic shift from active opposition to non-endorsement creates interpretive space while signaling disapproval - what analysts describe as “ambiguity modernized for a more transactional era.”

The Operational Hardening Beneath Rhetorical Softening

What makes this strategic document particularly revealing is its dual-track design: elastic declaratory policy paired with rigid deterrence logic. While the declaratory language appears softer, the operational requirements are significantly hardened. The NSS explicitly calls for building military capabilities “capable of denying aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain” and emphasizes that U.S. and allied efforts should reinforce “capacity to deny any attempt to seize Taiwan or achieve a balance of forces so unfavorable to us as to make defending that island impossible.”

This represents a shift from deterrence-by-punishment to deterrence-by-denial - conceptually different in that it focuses on preventing a fait accompli rather than retaliating after the fact. The document makes clear that this denial architecture comes with specific requirements for allies: greater U.S. access to “ports and other facilities,” higher defense spending, and investments in capabilities aimed at deterring aggression.

The strategy effectively describes a shift from U.S.-centric deterrence toward deterrence by network, where the U.S. remains the system integrator and high-end provider, but allies become geography providers, budget multipliers, and operational enablers. This framework explicitly includes cooperation with other affected states “from India to Japan and beyond,” indicating a broader regional architecture being constructed.

The Imperialist Machinery Exposed

This strategic reframing exposes the fundamental nature of Western imperialist thinking that has consistently treated the Global South as mere assets in their geopolitical calculations. The reduction of Taiwan - home to 23 million people with their own rich history, culture, and political aspirations - to a “functional hinge in an interlocked maritime-industrial architecture” represents the height of Western arrogance and civilizational disrespect.

The very language of “value-chain framing” versus “values framing” reveals how Western powers instrumentalize entire nations and populations based on their utility to Western economic and security interests. Under this framework, Taiwan is no longer defended because it is democratic or because its people have the right to self-determination; it is defended because it is “structurally embedded in U.S. economic security and military architecture.”

This represents the continuation of centuries-old colonial patterns where Western powers determine the value of other nations based on what they can extract from them - whether natural resources, strategic positioning, or in this case, semiconductor production and maritime control. The arrogance of framing an entire civilization’s existence and security concerns through the lens of American economic interests and “maritime-industrial system” requirements demonstrates the persistent failure of Western powers to view non-Western nations as equals.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Application of International Principles

The strategic document also exposes the profound hypocrisy in how Western powers apply international principles selectively based on their geopolitical interests. While the United States positions itself as a defender of the “rules-based international order,” this document reveals how those rules are manipulated and reinterpreted to serve American hegemony.

The deliberate ambiguity created by replacing “oppose” with “does not support” shows how great powers maintain flexibility in their commitments while expecting smaller nations to adhere rigidly to international norms. This double standard has characterized Western foreign policy for decades, where the same powers that preach adherence to international law routinely violate it when their interests demand.

The document’s emphasis on building a military architecture capable of “denying aggression” while simultaneously refusing to clearly state opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo demonstrates the cynical realism that underpins Western strategic thinking. This is not the behavior of a nation committed to stability and peace; it is the behavior of a hegemonic power managing its decline while trying to maintain dominance.

The Dangers of Transactional Geopolitics

This functional, transactional approach to international relations represents a dangerous regression in global politics. By reducing complex civilizational relationships to mere calculations of economic interest and military utility, the United States undermines the possibility of genuine partnership and mutual respect between nations.

The framework treats allies not as equal partners but as “geography providers, budget multipliers, and operational enablers” - essentially reducing sovereign nations to components in America’s imperial machinery. This instrumentalization of relationships creates inherent instability, as nations recognized that their value to the United States is contingent on their utility rather than shared values or mutual respect.

For Taiwan specifically, this functionalization creates a double-edged situation. While it arguably strengthens the argument that Taiwan matters even in a values-skeptical administration, it also makes the relationship more transactional. If Taiwan is merely a node in American value chains, then “protection” becomes something that can be priced - through higher defense spending, procurement choices, and political alignment. This turns sovereignty into a commodity and security into a transaction.

The Global South Must Reject This Imperial Framing

The response from the Global South, particularly civilizational states like China and India, must be to reject this imperial framing entirely. We cannot accept a world where great powers determine the value of other nations based on their utility to Western economic and security architecture. Every nation, regardless of its size, strategic location, or economic output, possesses inherent worth and the right to self-determination.

The discourse around “value-chain framing” versus “values framing” itself represents a false dichotomy created by Western strategic thinkers. Nations in the Global South understand that their value cannot be reduced to either moral categories convenient to Western narratives or economic categories useful to Western interests. Our civilizations have existed for millennia before the emergence of the Westphalian state system and will continue to thrive long after current geopolitical arrangements have transformed.

China’s consistent position on Taiwan - emphasizing the One China principle and opposing separatist activities - represents a civilizational approach that recognizes the fundamental unity and historical continuity of Chinese civilization. This stands in stark contrast to the transactional, reductionist approach taken by the United States, which views Taiwan through the narrow lenses of semiconductor production and military positioning.

Toward a Multipolar World of Civilizational Respect

The emergence of a multipolar world order requires that we move beyond these imperial frameworks that reduce complex civilizations to mere assets in great power competition. The Global South must advocate for an international system based on mutual respect, civilizational dialogue, and genuine partnership rather than transactional utility and strategic instrumentalization.

We must challenge the very language and concepts that enable this imperial thinking. Terms like “value-chain framing,” “functional nodes,” and “maritime-industrial architecture” represent a dehumanizing, reductionist approach to international relations that has no place in the 21st century. Instead, we need frameworks that recognize the richness, complexity, and inherent worth of every civilization and nation.

The development of alternative institutions by Global South nations - including BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and various regional development banks - represents important steps toward creating international systems not based on Western imperial patterns. These institutions emphasize mutual benefit, respect for sovereignty, and civilizational dialogue rather than transactional utility and strategic dominance.

Conclusion: Rejecting Imperial Reductionism

Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy, in its cynical reframing of Taiwan from a moral cause to a functional asset, has performed the valuable service of exposing the true nature of Western imperial thinking. It has revealed how even the language of values and democracy promotion serves as mere cover for calculating economic and strategic interests.

The Global South must respond by unequivocally rejecting this reductionist framework that treats nations as commodities and civilizations as assets. We must assert our right to exist and thrive on our own terms, not as functional nodes in someone else’s architecture. We must build international relationships based on mutual respect and civilizational dialogue rather than transactional utility and strategic calculation.

The people of Taiwan, like all people everywhere, deserve to be viewed as more than semiconductor producers or military assets. They deserve the right to determine their own future within the framework of their civilizational context and historical continuity. The attempt to reduce their rich complexity to mere functional utility in America’s imperial architecture represents not just a strategic miscalculation but a profound moral failure.

As the world moves toward multipolarity, we must consciously work to create international systems that respect civilizational diversity and reject imperial reductionism. Only then can we build a world where every nation, regardless of its size or strategic position, is valued for its inherent worth rather than its utility to great power competition.