In a week marked by high-stakes diplomacy and simmering geopolitical tensions, United States President Donald Trump announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping has offered assurances that Beijing will not attempt to unify Taiwan with mainland China for as long as Trump remains in office. The revelation came during a widely watched CBS 60 Minutes interview aired on November 2, 2025, just days after Trump and Xi met face-to-face in Busan, South Korea, for the first time in six years.
According to multiple reports, including detailed coverage from the Associated Press and OAN, the October 30 meeting at Gimhae International Airport was dominated by US-China trade talks rather than the sensitive Taiwan issue. Trump, nevertheless, emerged from the summit confident that China would refrain from any military or political moves toward Taiwan during his presidency. As he put it in the televised interview, "He has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, 'We would never do anything while President Trump is president,' because they know the consequences."
Pressed by CBS’s 60 Minutes on whether he would order US military intervention if China acted against Taiwan, Trump maintained the longstanding US policy of strategic ambiguity. "You'll find out if it happens, and he understands the answer to that," Trump replied, referring to Xi. He declined to elaborate, adding, "I can't give away my secrets. The other side knows." This approach, which has been the hallmark of both Republican and Democratic administrations, aims to keep adversaries guessing about the US response while avoiding explicit commitments that could escalate tensions or provoke miscalculations.
The Taiwan issue, a persistent flashpoint in US-China relations, did not surface directly during the leaders’ discussions in South Korea. Instead, the summit focused on trade—an area where both countries have much at stake. According to OAN, the two sides reached a preliminary agreement to lower tariffs on Chinese goods from 57% to 47%. In return, China agreed to reopen access to rare earth minerals and resume the purchase of US soybeans, although the deal had not yet been formally signed as of the interview date.
Despite the apparent diplomatic progress, the specter of conflict over Taiwan continues to loom large. China has ramped up large-scale military drills simulating invasion and blockade scenarios around the self-governed island, heightening concerns in Washington and Taipei. In response, Taiwan has significantly increased its defense budget—by roughly 75% over the past two years—devoting a proportionally larger share of government spending to defense than even the US, as OAN reported. The island’s government has cited the growing frequency and complexity of Chinese military maneuvers as justification for this rapid expansion.
For its part, the US remains committed to the terms of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The law, which governs the unofficial relationship between Washington and Taipei, requires the US to help Taiwan maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities and to oppose any unilateral attempts to alter the island’s status by force. However, it stops short of mandating direct US military intervention if China attacks. As noted by the BBC and other outlets, this legal framework underpins the policy of strategic ambiguity that Trump once again invoked in his interview.
Chinese officials have not confirmed the assurances Trump claims to have received. Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, sidestepped direct questions about the matter, instead reiterating Beijing’s longstanding position: "China will never allow any person or force to separate Taiwan from China in any way. The Taiwan question is China’s internal affair, and it is the core of China’s core interests. How to resolve the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people ourselves, and only the Chinese people can decide it." This statement, echoed in outlets such as The Hindu and the Associated Press, underscores Beijing’s view that the Taiwan issue is non-negotiable and not subject to foreign interference.
The White House, for its part, declined to provide further details about the timing or manner in which Xi or Chinese officials conveyed these assurances to Trump. This lack of clarity has left some observers questioning the substance and durability of the reported guarantees, especially given the current climate of distrust and strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing.
Trump’s CBS 60 Minutes appearance, recorded at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on November 1, 2025, was his first on the program since settling a lawsuit with CBS News earlier this year. The lawsuit stemmed from a previous interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which Trump alleged had been deceptively edited to favor the Democratic Party during the 2024 presidential election. He initially sought $10 billion in damages, later raising the claim to $20 billion, before reaching a settlement over the summer.
While the Taiwan issue did not explicitly arise in the October 30 discussions, Trump’s comments have nonetheless reignited debate in Washington and beyond over how best to deter Chinese aggression without stumbling into conflict. Some analysts argue that Trump’s reliance on personal assurances from Xi could prove risky, especially given Beijing’s recent military posturing. Others contend that maintaining ambiguity is the wisest course, as it preserves flexibility and avoids painting the US into a corner.
Meanwhile, the people of Taiwan continue to watch developments with a mixture of apprehension and resolve. The island’s government, led by President Tsai Ing-wen, has consistently sought to bolster its defenses and deepen ties with the US and other democracies, even as Beijing intensifies diplomatic and military pressure. The coming months will likely test the strength of the commitments made in Busan—and the credibility of the assurances that President Trump claims to have secured.
As the global balance of power continues to shift, the Taiwan question remains as thorny and consequential as ever. With both sides signaling resolve and the US maintaining its tradition of ambiguity, the world is left to wonder just how much weight to place on promises made behind closed doors.
