PROFILE: William Lai, the Taiwanese President Who Refuses to Back Down in the Face of Beijing

“I will not give up”

Faced with this persistent parliamentary deadlock, Lai stated resolutely that he “will not give up” on his goals of strengthening Taiwan’s defense, reiterating his ambition to increase defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2030, up from the current level of about 3 percent— a threshold that Taiwan had exceeded for the first time since 2009 with a budget of $30.3 billion in 2026.

This budgetary ambition puts Lai in direct alignment with U.S. and Western demands for defense burden-sharing, a position that could bolster his credibility with Washington while further exposing the internal divisions in Taiwanese politics in the face of opposition.

A Strategy of Gradual Workarounds

Faced with parliamentary obstruction, Lai and his government are exploring alternative budgetary mechanisms to partially fund the defense priorities rejected by Parliament, notably through adjustments to the Ministry of Defense’s regular annual budgets—a slower method but one that is politically less vulnerable to opposition blockades.

While this strategy of gradual circumvention allows for a minimum level of progress in Taiwan’s military modernization, it does not replace the scale and speed that would have been possible had the special budget initially proposed by Lai been fully adopted.

I respect Lai’s determination to patiently circumvent these roadblocks rather than give in to resignation. But I remain concerned: Taiwan may not have the luxury of time that this political slowness imposes on it, especially when faced with a China that is moving forward without any internal opposition to overcome.

Eleven billion dollars, the largest contract ever approved

In December 2025, the United States approved an $11 billion arms deal with Taiwan—the largest ever granted to the island—prompting an immediate outcry from Beijing, which views any sale of U.S. weapons to Taiwan as interference in its internal affairs and a violation of its claimed sovereignty over the island.

This massive contract illustrates Washington’s ongoing commitment to Taiwan’s defense, a policy that has remained relatively consistent across various U.S. administrations, despite the lack of official diplomatic recognition between the United States and Taiwan for decades.

A strategic dependence that worries some analysts

However, Taiwan’s dependence on U.S. military supplies raises questions among some defense analysts, who wonder about the island’s ability to maintain a sufficient level of deterrence should U.S. strategic priorities shift—particularly given that Washington must also manage simultaneous military commitments in Europe and the Middle East.

This reality is prompting Lai to place even greater emphasis on developing domestic military production capabilities, particularly for drones and missiles—a priority that partly explains why he has maintained these budget line items despite partial obstruction by his parliamentary opposition.

I believe that this dependence on U.S. deliveries, however generous they may be, represents a real strategic vulnerability for Taiwan. Lai is right to want to develop domestic production capacity, even if his parliamentary opposition does not seem to share this sense of urgency.

Unprecedented Institutional Preparedness

According to reports from early July 2026, more than 370 Taiwanese officials took part in government preparedness exercises designed to test the island’s institutional resilience in the face of a major crisis scenario, potentially including a direct military confrontation with China. This unprecedented institutional mobilization illustrates the scale of the preparations undertaken under President Lai.

These exercises, which cover scenarios ranging from a naval blockade to a massive cyberattack against Taiwan’s critical infrastructure, demonstrate that Lai’s approach goes far beyond the military dimension alone to encompass the full spectrum of national resilience in the face of a potential aggression.

A Mobilized Civil Society

Beyond government institutions, Lai’s administration is also encouraging a broader mobilization of Taiwanese civil society through resilience training programs and awareness campaigns on the risks of disinformation—a threat that Taiwan considers just as serious as China’s conventional military threat.

This comprehensive approach to national resilience—which combines military, institutional, and civilian preparedness—distinguishes Lai’s strategy from that of some of his predecessors, who focused more narrowly on conventional military deterrence against Beijing.

I find this comprehensive approach to resilience particularly relevant. A society that can resist disinformation and collective panic is often harder to destabilize than an army alone, no matter how well-equipped it may be.

Routine Air Incursions

For several years now, the Chinese military has been stepping up its air and naval incursions around Taiwan—an almost daily form of pressure aimed at psychologically wearing down the Taiwanese population and armed forces while continuously testing the island’s ability to respond to these repeated provocations.

This constant pressure, methodically documented by the Taiwanese Ministry of Defense, has intensified significantly following the “Justice Mission 2025” exercises in late December—a sign that Beijing has no intention of easing military pressure despite international calls for restraint in the region.

The North Korean Precedent That Worries Taipei

Taiwanese authorities are closely monitoring the growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea, fearing that a similar precedent of Russian or North Korean military support for China could one day significantly bolster China’s capabilities in the event of a direct confrontation over Taiwan.

This fear of expanded coordination among authoritarian regimes—from Moscow to Pyongyang, via Tehran and Beijing—is increasingly shaping Taiwan’s defense doctrine, which no longer views the Chinese threat as isolated but as potentially linked to a broader authoritarian axis.

I share this Taiwanese concern. If North Korea can exchange soldiers for missiles with Russia, there is nothing to prevent a similar dynamic from emerging one day between Beijing and its authoritarian partners—a prospect that should be of even greater alarm to Western democracies.

A Strong Democratic Identity

Taiwan, with its population of 23 million, has developed over the decades a distinct democratic identity, characterized by free elections, an independent press, and a dynamic civil society—features that Beijing’s authoritarian regime does not recognize as legitimizing any form of sovereignty separate from mainland China.

Lai, as a democratically elected president, embodies this Taiwanese democratic institutional continuity—a political reality that China systematically seeks to delegitimize through its official rhetoric and constant military and diplomatic pressure on the international stage.

A Model That Is Disruptive by Its Very Existence

Taiwan’s very existence as a functioning and prosperous democracy—culturally close to mainland China but politically distinct—poses a direct ideological challenge to the Beijing regime, which cannot tolerate the idea that a Chinese society could thrive sustainably under a democratic rather than an authoritarian system.

This ideological dimension of the conflict—often underestimated compared to strictly military or territorial considerations—partly explains the intensity of the pressure Beijing exerts on Taipei, far beyond the traditional issues of territorial sovereignty alone.

I believe it is precisely this ideological dimension that makes Taiwan’s fate so important for the entire free world. If a thriving Chinese democracy can be wiped out by force, it sends a terrible signal to all the fragile democracies around the globe.

Genuine but measured Western support

Several Western governments, while not officially recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state due to the so-called “One China” policy, maintain significant economic, informal diplomatic, and sometimes military ties with the island—support that remains carefully calibrated, however, to avoid a complete diplomatic break with Beijing.

This Western caution—which sometimes frustrates certain Taiwanese officials hoping for more assertive support—reflects the complex reality of contemporary international relations, where economic interests tied to mainland China continue to weigh heavily on the diplomatic calculations of many Western capitals.

Japan, the Geographically Closest Ally

Japan, due to its direct geographical proximity to Taiwan, has repeatedly expressed particular concern over rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait, aware that a military confrontation in this area would have direct and immediate consequences for its own national and regional security.

This geographical proximity explains the intensification of security cooperation between Tokyo and Taipei in recent years—cooperation that remains, however, limited by the absence of official diplomatic relations between the two entities, a complex legacy of East Asia’s regional history.

I understand the West’s diplomatic caution, but I believe it is reaching its limits. At some point, the free world will have to choose between commercial caution and the defense of a democracy of twenty-three million people that is simply trying to survive.

Semiconductors: A Global Strategic Asset

Taiwan is home to one of the world’s most advanced and critical semiconductor industries, an economic reality that gives the island considerable strategic importance for the global economy as a whole—including for China itself, which is heavily dependent on Taiwanese chips for its own technological and military needs.

This mutual dependence—sometimes referred to as the “silicon shield” by some analysts—paradoxically constitutes one of the most powerful deterrents against an immediate Chinese invasion, as the destruction of Taiwan’s semiconductor infrastructure would entail catastrophic economic costs for the entire global economy, including Beijing.

A Vulnerability That Remains Real Despite Everything

This economic importance does not, however, guarantee absolute protection against Chinese military action, as some analysts believe that Beijing could, in an extreme scenario, accept a considerable economic cost if the political and ideological stakes associated with reunification were deemed sufficiently high a priority by the Chinese leadership.

This fundamental uncertainty regarding Beijing’s actual calculations continues to fuel strategic debates in both Taipei and Washington, with no absolute certainty regarding the Chinese regime’s precise future intentions toward the island.

I do not believe that Taiwan’s economic importance alone is sufficient to guarantee its security indefinitely. History has shown on several occasions that ideological considerations can override rational economic calculations, even costly ones.

A Journey from Medicine to Politics

William Lai, a former physician before entering politics, has built his career on a reputation for rigor and consistency—qualities he has applied to his leadership of Taiwan in the face of constant pressure from China, which, had he been a less methodical leader, might have prompted a more impulsive or erratic response.

This medical training, which emphasizes the methodical observation of facts before any decision is made, seems to have permanently shaped his approach to the presidency: neither denial of risks nor excessive dramatization, but rather a constant and measured assessment of the island’s strategic situation vis-à-vis its mainland neighbor.

Popularity That Still Needs to Be Consolidated

Despite this firm stance—which is appreciated by a segment of the Taiwanese public—Lai must contend with a popularity eroded by repeated parliamentary deadlocks and by an opposition that regularly challenges his handling of relations with Beijing, a domestic political reality that sometimes limits his room for maneuver on the international stage.

This domestic political fragility is one of the most underestimated challenges of Lai’s presidency: leading an island under constant military pressure while having to contend with a parliamentary opposition that does not necessarily share his sense of strategic urgency regarding China.

I believe this domestic political fragility is perhaps the greatest danger facing Taiwan—even more so than Chinese military pressure itself. A democracy divided over the urgency of its own defense sends a signal of weakness that Beijing will not fail to exploit.

Lessons Learned from Kyiv’s Resistance

Taiwanese officials, including Lai himself, regularly cite Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion as a source of inspiration and direct strategic lessons for their own preparations to face a potential Chinese threat, particularly in terms of civilian resilience, asymmetric defense, and mobilizing international opinion.

This constant reference to Ukraine is no coincidence: Taipei is closely observing how a medium-sized nation can sustainably resist a far more powerful aggressor, provided it benefits from sustained international support and determined national mobilization.

A Crucial Geographical Difference

This comparison with Ukraine, however, has a major strategic limitation that Taiwanese analysts readily acknowledge: unlike Ukraine, which has land borders with allied countries allowing for a continuous logistical flow of Western military equipment, Taiwan remains an island, entirely dependent on sea and air routes that could be quickly blocked in the event of a major conflict with China.

This fundamental geographical difference necessitates a defense doctrine for Taiwan that is radically different from Ukraine’s, one focused more on preventive deterrence and immediate military self-sufficiency rather than on the hope of continuous resupply in the event of a prolonged conflict.

I find that this crucial geographical difference is too often overlooked in hasty comparisons between Ukraine and Taiwan. A besieged island does not have the luxury of continuous land-based resupply that Kyiv enjoys, which makes every dollar invested in defense today all the more urgent.

Targeted Chinese Disinformation

Beyond conventional military pressure, Taiwan faces a sustained disinformation campaign, orchestrated from mainland China, aimed at undermining the Taiwanese public’s confidence in its own democratic institutions and in the reliability of U.S. support in the event of a major crisis. This information war constitutes a parallel front that is just as strategic as direct military pressure.

The Lai administration has strengthened its capabilities for detecting and countering disinformation, recognizing that Taiwan’s democratic resilience depends as much on its ability to withstand information manipulation as on its conventional military capabilities in the face of a potential invasion.

Social Media: The New Battleground

Taiwanese social media platforms are regularly targeted by coordinated campaigns aimed at amplifying internal political divisions, particularly around debates on the defense budget—a Chinese strategy that skillfully exploits existing democratic rifts rather than seeking direct and immediate military confrontation.

This silent information war considerably complicates Lai’s task, as he must not only convince his own Parliament of the urgency of rearmament but also simultaneously counter foreign narratives that actively seek to fuel public skepticism about that very urgency.

I believe this information war deserves as much attention as China’s military maneuvers. A democracy divided from within by disinformation is sometimes more vulnerable than a poorly equipped army, as it loses its collective ability to determine its own future.

Informal Security Partnerships

In the absence of official diplomatic recognition by most countries around the world, Taiwan has developed over the years a network of informal security partnerships with several Western democracies, including intelligence exchanges, joint military training, and technological cooperation, though these relationships are not always made public to avoid exacerbating tensions with Beijing.

These discreet partnerships, though less visible than formal alliances such as NATO, play a significant strategic role in strengthening Taiwan’s defensive capabilities, allowing the island to benefit from substantial international support despite its persistent official diplomatic isolation.

Diplomacy of Necessity

This discreet diplomacy, shaped by necessity rather than choice, illustrates Taipei’s adaptability in the face of structural international constraints that would, for a less determined nation, limit any possibility of developing meaningful security partnerships on the global stage.

Lai has personally invested considerable time and diplomatic resources to consolidate these discreet relationships, aware that they could prove decisive in the event of a major crisis with China, despite their relative invisibility in the current international public debate.

I find Taiwan’s ability to build substantial alliances despite the lack of official diplomatic recognition remarkable. It is a lesson in political pragmatism that Lai has skillfully harnessed to ensure his island’s survival.

A Vital Maritime Corridor for Global Trade

The Taiwan Strait is one of the world’s busiest commercial shipping lanes, traversed daily by hundreds of ships carrying goods essential to the global economy, meaning that any potential crisis in this area would have economic repercussions far beyond the Indo-Pacific region alone.

This global economic dimension explains why stability in the Taiwan Strait directly concerns geographically distant powers such as European countries, whose supply chains rely heavily on the free flow of maritime traffic in this sensitive strategic region.

A Symbol of Global Democratic Resistance

Beyond economic considerations, Taiwan has gradually become a symbol of democratic resistance in the face of authoritarian ambitions, alongside Ukraine in its stand against Russia—a symbolic convergence that Lai himself has explicitly acknowledged on several occasions in his official speeches to the international community.

This symbolic dimension reinforces the moral pressure on Western democracies to maintain—or even strengthen—their support for Taipei, lest they send a signal of weakness that could encourage other authoritarian regimes to test the limits of Western resolve elsewhere in the world.

I believe that Taiwan and Ukraine have become two sides of the same global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Abandoning one would permanently undermine the West’s credibility in the face of the other, and both issues must be addressed with the same absolute determination.

A President Who Refuses to Accept Inevitable Fate

William Lai Ching-te embodies a discreet yet tenacious resistance in the face of constant Chinese pressure, rejecting both needless provocation and resignation in the face of Beijing’s repeated intimidation. His presidency will be marked by this effort to maintain a calm resolve amid growing regional tensions, despite the internal political gridlock that regularly complicates his task.

An Uncertain Future That Will Depend on Collective Choices

Taiwan’s future will depend not only on Lai’s personal determination, but also on the ability of Taiwanese society to overcome its internal divisions regarding the best strategy toward China, as well as on the continued international support—particularly from the United States—during the critical years ahead for the island’s security.

I’ll conclude with a firm conviction: Taiwan deserves to be defended not only because of its economic importance, but because its demise as a democracy would send a devastating message to all free nations living under the threat of a more powerful authoritarian neighbor.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist