Follow us on social

Pelosi's big trip to Taiwan draws ire from China — and White House

Pelosi's big trip to Taiwan draws ire from China — and White House

The critics are right, a visit from such a high ranking official would be a serious mistake and the president should ask her to cancel it.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

China warned earlier this week that it would take “resolute and forceful measures” if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi followed through on her reported plans to visit Taiwan next month.

Pelosi had previously planned to go to Taiwan in April, but the visit was postponed after she tested positive for Covid-19. News about the plan for the August trip first appeared in The Financial Times on Tuesday, which prompted an outcry from the Chinese government. If she goes, she would be the first Speaker of the House to visit since Newt Gingrich traveled there in 1997. 

President Biden also seemed to question the wisdom of the trip, but he presented the objection to Pelosi’s visit as coming from military officials rather than directly from him. “The military thinks that it’s not a good idea right now,” Biden said on Wednesday in response to a reporter’s question. 

In this case, the military is right. While there is an understandable desire to show support for Taiwan in response to increasing tensions with China, Pelosi’s visit would be a serious mistake that would likely make things worse. Sending one of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to Taiwan is bound to be very provocative, and it would expose Taiwan to additional risks for the sake of nothing more important than a glorified photo op. 

The Quincy Institute’s Michael Swaine summed up the problems with the proposed visit: “Pelosi visiting Taiwan is such a bad idea it’s hard to know where to begin in criticizing it. She is a senior member of the United States government. There is no upside to such a visit and only downsides.”

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi earlier denounced Pelosi’s proposed April visit as a “malicious provocation,” and nothing has changed in the months since then that would make the Chinese government tone down its criticism. If anything, U.S.-Chinese relations are worse now than they were a few months ago, as the Chinese government has said that it does not regard any part of the Taiwan Strait as international waters. 

The U.S. rejects the Chinese position and U.S. naval vessels have been transiting through the Strait repeatedly, much to Beijing’s annoyance. Tensions are already high enough that it would be ill-advised to poke the Chinese government in the eye with a major visit. This is probably what informed the military advice that Biden mentioned.

Top Congressional leaders usually do not go to Taiwan, because whatever benefit might be derived from such a visit is not worth the backlash from Beijing that will follow. A visit by Pelosi or any high-ranking official amounts to goading the Chinese government publicly, and that all but guarantees an adverse reaction to the detriment of both the U.S. and Taiwan. 

New Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan took place in a very different time. The United States had just faced down China during the Taiwan Strait crisis the previous year, and the U.S. was near the height of the so-called “unipolar moment.” The Chinese government’s response to Gingrich’s visit was much more muted than its rhetoric about Pelosi has been. China is much more powerful and assertive today than it was in 1997, and the U.S. is in relative decline. We should not assume that the Chinese reaction to a Pelosi visit would be the same now as it was then. 

Whatever Pelosi’s intentions might be, the consequences could be dangerous. That could take the form of economic punishment or increased military activity that would put additional strain on Taiwan. Any punitive measures taken by China would then further sour U.S.-China relations. That would impair our governments’ ability to engage constructively on other issues of global concern, including climate change and the ongoing pandemic. It is entirely possible that the U.S. could wind up blundering into another crisis in the Taiwan Strait if it is not much more careful than it has been recently. 

Furthermore, controversy over Pelosi’s visit threatens to overshadow Biden’s upcoming virtual meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. There has been speculation that Biden might reverse at least some of the Trump-era China tariffs in a bid to combat inflation, but if he does so now then he runs the risk of being attacked for “backing down” in the face of Chinese threats. 

The tariffs mainly harm Americans, so those attacks would be absurd, but the politics of the China policy debate are anything but rational. Xi will also be less inclined to compromise if he thinks that Washington is preparing to embarrass him with a high-profile official visit to Taiwan a week or two later. 

The report of Pelosi’s planned visit also comes in the wake of other visits to Taiwan by former top officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. During his visit, Esper called for an end to U.S. “strategic ambiguity.” Coming so soon after Esper’s remarks, a Pelosi visit would likely be interpreted as another step in the direction of making an explicit U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense. 

Given that the president already erroneously declared in May that the U.S. has a commitment to fight for Taiwan, there is considerable confusion about the Biden administration’s policy on this question. The apparent lack of coordination between Biden and Pelosi over the August visit has only added to that confusion.

Because news of Pelosi’s planned visit leaked out in advance, the U.S. is already paying some of the costs for the trip before it has even been announced. If Pelosi now decides not to go to Taiwan, she and Biden will be accused by China hawks of “caving” to Beijing. The Biden administration has been wary of antagonizing hawkish critics on most issues, so it might end up endorsing a Pelosi visit despite its misgivings.

 In response to Chinese criticism, there will be a temptation to send Pelosi to Taiwan to defy their government without regard for the reaction that it causes. It would have been better if the trip had never been suggested, and it would be foolish to go through with it out of some misguided sense of pride.

Managing U.S.-Chinese relations is one of the most important foreign policy tasks that our government has, and it is damaging for both countries and for the region when the relationship is managed in such a confused and slapdash way. The Biden administration needs to clarify what its China policy is, and it needs to make sure that the president doesn’t freelance and invent new commitments on the fly.

Biden should privately appeal to Pelosi to drop the idea of going to Taiwan, and he also needs to coordinate more closely with Congress to avoid more of these unwanted surprises in the future.


New York, NY - March 14, 2022: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at Mount Saint Vincent College. (Lev Radin/Shutterstock)|San Francisco, CA – January 17, 2011: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivers remarks at a memorial ceremony for Dr. Martin Luther King at San Francisco's Yerba Buena Center Gardens.
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.