Why Does the American Left Hate Trump?

 Introduction

The American liberal left (from now on referred to as the American Left)  is a multilayered and dynamic coalition of political parties, advocacy groups, social movements, and influential personalities. 

It works purportedly to promote progressive policies and advocates social, economic, and environmental justice. The American Left is a major influencer in the political conversation in the United States.

The Democratic Party is at the frontline of the American Left and is the primary political vehicle for liberal and left-leaning viewpoints. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are the leading figures within the party, speaking for mainstream liberal policies touching on economic recovery, healthcare reform, and climate action.

Although the Democratic Party as a whole supports “progressive” ideals, there is a radical wing that advocates for more drastic changes in American society. The notable figures in this faction are Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (better known as “AOC”) of New York. 

Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has been a vocal proponent of, among others,  Medicare for All and tuition-free college, while Ocasio-Cortez, champions the Green New Deal and social justice initiatives.

Organizations like the Justice Democrats and Our Revolution further make up the American Left.  The Justice Democrats, a political action committee, supports progressive candidates such as Representative Cori Bush of Missouri. Representative Bush is campaigning to raise awareness about racial and economic injustices.

Our Revolution, founded by Bernie Sanders, is an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and advocates for grassroots engagement and progressive policies. Nina Turner, a former state senator in Ohio, is the president of Our Revolution. The organization is dedicated to reshaping the political landscape through progressive reforms.

Various personalities figure in the American Left. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts advocates for consumer protection and economic equality, while Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, strongly supports healthcare and immigration reforms. Representative Ro Khanna of California focuses on technological advancements and economic justice, further expanding the American Left’s policy priorities.

Advocacy and think tank groups provide intellectual and organizational support to the American Left. MoveOn.org is a prominent progressive public policy advocacy group and political action committee that mobilizes voters and advocates for a wide range of issues, from healthcare to climate change. The Center for American Progress is another influential entity, conducting research and promoting progressive ideas to shape public policy.

The American Left is closely connected with Black Lives Matter (BLM), a movement that focuses on racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people. It was co-founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. BLM has played a crucial role in highlighting racial injustices and pushing for police reform. 

Likewise, the Sunrise Movement, led by executive director Varshini Prakash, mobilizes young people to demand urgent action on climate change and advocates for policies like the Green New Deal. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), with key figures such as Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of Jacobin magazine, promotes democratic socialism as a way to achieve economic and social justice.

Media personalities and influencers also contribute significantly to the American Left discourse. Rachel Maddow, a host on MSNBC, provides a progressive perspective on current events, while Jon Stewart, a comedian and former host of "The Daily Show," uses satire to critique conservative politics and highlight social issues. Documentary filmmaker and author Michael Moore is known for his incisive critiques of corporate America and advocacy for progressive causes.

Cultural and academic influences further enrich the American Left landscape. Noam Chomsky, a linguist, philosopher, and political activist, is celebrated for his critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy. Also, Cornel West, a philosopher, political activist, and author, proffers profound insights into race, class, and social justice, adding to the intellectual foundation of the American Left.

What Then Motivates the American Left to Hate Donald J. Trump?

The American Left’s hostility to Donald Trump is rooted in differences in ideology, policy, and values. These factors combined have led to fear and loathing of Trump from the former, who view his policies and behavior as extremely antithetical to their values and the direction they believe the country should take. 

Some of the dominant reasons are:

1. Immigration: Trump's hardline stance on immigration, including the construction of the border wall and family separation policies, contrasts sharply with the American Left’s position on more humane and inclusive immigration policies. Under the Trump administration, the US government had a "zero-tolerance" policy that allowed authorities to deport adults who crossed the border illegally. In some cases, parents were deported back to their home countries without their children, who were placed in government custody.

2. Climate Change: the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and its deregulation of environmental protections are seen as harmful by the American Left, which prioritizes environmental sustainability and climate action. Trump's withdrawal increased the carbon price for other countries while reducing the US’ carbon price. When the withdrawal took effect, the U.S. was the only United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) member state that was not a signatory to the Paris Agreement.

3. Healthcare: The Trump administration’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its changes to Medicaid and Medicare are opposed by American Left-liberals who advocate for expanded healthcare access. In the present campaign, Trump has made it clear that his goal remains to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including its expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults, and to impose rigid caps on the federal government’s Medicaid spending.

4. LGBTQ+ Rights: Trump administration actions such as the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the rollback of protections for LGBTQ+ people are viewed as regressive by American Left-liberals who support equality and anti-discrimination measures. In its first year (2017), the Trump administration tried to reinstate a ban on transgender people in the military. It nominated multiple people to the courts and elsewhere who have anti-LGBTQ records. It directed its army of federal lawyers to take the anti-LGBTQ side in court cases.

5. Reproductive Rights: Trump’s appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court, which has led to increased threats to Roe v. Wade, is opposed by American Left-liberals who support abortion rights. Trump said his actions have “put the Pro-Life movement in a strong negotiating position” against proponents of abortion rights, giving himself credit for the various bans that are being advanced by conservatives across the country. More than a dozen states have enacted abortion limits since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2023.

6. Divisive Rhetoric and Behavior: Trump’s often inflammatory and divisive language, particularly on issues of race, ethnicity, and religion, is seen by the American Liberal-Left as fostering division and hate. They view his behavior, including his use of social media and public statements, as unpresidential and damaging to the dignity of the office. CNN, a vociferous Trump critic, has said that Trump’s extreme rhetoric is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda and his penchant for what it sees as taking the side of America’s adversaries poses a unique challenge to his Republican opponents and, ultimately, the American people.

7. Disregard for Norms and Institutions: The American Left views Trump’s attacks on the press, judiciary, and other institutions as undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. It is alarmed by what it sees as Trump's disregard for the rule of law and his perceived attempts to undermine democratic norms and institutions. In the eyes of the American Left, Trump has been following a consistent playbook in his attacks on the judges, court staff, witnesses, and opposing lawyers involved in his many civil and criminal trials. They accuse him of seeking to subvert the system by using its mechanisms for his ends and to avoid having his day in court, rather than facing a judge and jury.

8. Alliances and Diplomacy: Trump's approach to traditional alliances such as NATO, his strained relationships with traditional allies, and his interactions with authoritarian leaders are seen by the American Left as weakening the global standing and values of the United States and contrary to its vision of collaborative international relations. According to them, the Trump administration’s words and actions have taken a toll on US foreign policy, the prospects for U.S. leadership in the world, and the health and security of Americans. Furthermore, the American Left says US diplomats report they cannot effectively champion human rights or promote good governance because of the President's example.

9. Trade Policies: Trump’s trade wars, particularly with China, have been criticized by the American Left for adversely impacting global trade and economic stability. The trade war with China, according to them, has caused economic hurt on both sides and has led to the diversion of trade flows away from both China and the United States. Heather Long of the Washington Post wrote: “U.S. economic growth slowed, business investment froze, and companies didn’t hire as many people. Across the nation, many farmers went bankrupt, and the manufacturing and freight transportation sectors hit lows not seen since the last recession.”

10. Tax Cuts: The 2017 tax cuts, which are seen as disproportionately benefiting the wealthy and corporations, are opposed by the American Left who promote more progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. New research shows the corporate rate cut overwhelmingly benefited top earners and executives, failing to trickle down to rank-and-file workers. The available evidence suggests that this tax cut has indeed not provided substantial advantages for regular workers.

11. Regulation: Deregulation efforts, particularly in financial, environmental, and labor markets, are seen by the American Left as favoring big businesses at the expense of consumer and worker protections. They say President Trump often used executive orders as a centerpiece of his deregulatory agenda and often ordered U.S. federal agencies to rescind regulations. The American Left’s position is that Trump’s “corporate presidency” delivered benefits to businesses, but harmed the public.

12. Transparency and Accountability: Issues such as the handling of the Mueller investigation, the Ukraine scandal leading to his impeachment, and concerns about conflicts of interest and personal gain are viewed by the American Left as indicative of corruption and a lack of accountability under the Trump administration. Some of its observers say the administration took important policy steps to improve the way agencies collect and share data. Still, others cite an abysmal record in releasing information related to policy decisions and activities on immigration enforcement, environmental protection, climate science, and other contentious issues.

13. Racial Inequality: The American Left perceives Trump's rhetoric and policies as exacerbating racial tensions and undermining civil rights. His handling of issues related to police brutality and his response to movements like BLM have been particularly provocative. Some had hoped he would moderate his tone in office, but during his four years, they aver that Trump had inflamed racial tensions even more — through both rhetoric and policy. They further contend that Trump heavily favored existing American prejudices, oftentimes times using racist language and dog whistles, and has repeatedly failed to denounce white supremacy.

14. Women's Rights: The American Left denounces Trump's inconsistent stance on reproductive rights, including his efforts to restrict access to abortion by causing the question to be thrown to the states, and his appointments of conservative justices to the Supreme Court who have struck down Roe v. Wade. To them, few issues epitomize the astonishing nature of Donald J. Trump’s political comeback as his stand on abortion. Over the past two decades, Trump’s public statements on one of the most divisive American issues have swung like a pendulum, to his political advantage. In response, Trump has compared his shifting stand on abortion to that of Republican icon and former President Ronald Reagan.

15. Labor Rights: Trump's policies are seen by the American Left as favoring businesses over workers, with less emphasis on labor rights, fair wages, and workplace protections. The American Left contends that from Trump’s first day in office, he systematically promoted the interests of corporate executives and shareholders over those of working people. Furthermore, they charge that Trump rolled back worker protections, proposed budgets that slash funding for agencies that safeguard workers’ rights, wages, and safety, and consistently attacked workers’ ability to organize and collectively bargain. 

16. Response to the Covid Crisis: The American Left has criticized President Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. It perceives his response as inadequate, dismissive of scientific advice, and harmful to public health. In particular, the American Left has decried Trump’s failure to mount a timely and effective response to the COVID‐19 outbreak, despite ample warning. They avow that the Trump administration underestimated the coronavirus threat and responded slowly and botched the federal response.

References:

Brookings. (2021, July 23). Have Democrats become a party of the left? Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu

Brookings. (2021). The political typology: In polarized era, deep divisions persist within coalitions of both Democrats and Republicans. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org

Brookings. (2020). The Trump administration’s major environmental deregulations. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu

Columbia University. (2021). The Paris Climate Agreement: What Trump’s decision to leave means. Retrieved from https://news.climate.columbia.edu

Grantham Research Institute. (2017, June 5). Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: What next for international climate policy?. Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk

Long, H. (2020). U.S. economic growth slowed, business investment froze, and companies didn’t hire as many people. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com

National Geographic. (2020). 15 ways the Trump administration has impacted the environment. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com

United States Department of State. (2020). On the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://2017-2021.state.gov

Putin's Plan for a Ceasefire in Ukraine

It has been more than two years and four months since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There has been a surprising shift in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach, as he has shown a willingness to negotiate a ceasefire. We will explore the reasons behind this change, looking at the strategies involved and assessing the wider impact on regional stability and global geopolitics.

1. Consolidating Territorial Gains

Putin's willingness to discuss a ceasefire is mainly driven by a desire to solidify and legitimize Russia's territorial advances. The proposed ceasefire would establish the current battlefield lines as de facto borders, with Russia maintaining control over significant parts of Ukrainian territory, including strategically important areas such as Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol.

This strategy would allow Putin to portray these territorial gains as victories to the Russian population, shaping the narrative of a successful expansion and bolstering of Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The halt to hostilities on these terms would essentially maintain the existing status quo, effectively acknowledging Russian control over conquered territories without the need for further military action, which has been costly in terms of resources and human lives.

2. Internal Tensions and the Cost of War

Internally, Russia faces significant pressures that are influencing Putin's decision-making. The human cost of the war, with high casualty rates and widespread desertion, has been considerable. Economic sanctions have further strained Russia’s economy, exacerbating public discontent and potential political instability. The war's popularity among the Russian public is waning, as indicated by increasing domestic dissent and protests against military conscription. A ceasefire would potentially allow Putin to alleviate these internal pressures, presenting the move as a step toward peace while stabilizing his political standing within the country.

3. International Dynamics and Western Support for Ukraine

On the international stage, increasing military aid and economic support from Western countries to Ukraine are likely causing Putin to reassess his strategic calculations. The significant aid packages from the U.S. and EU are boosting Ukraine's defensive capabilities, which could shift the balance on the battlefield. Putin's call for a ceasefire can be seen as an attempt to prevent a stronger Ukrainian counteroffensive supported by the West. By proposing peace talks now, Putin aims to secure the current territorial gains before Ukraine can use Western aid to retake lost territory.

4. The Geopolitical Strategy of Limiting NATO's Involvement

Putin's proposal for a ceasefire also serves as a larger geopolitical strategy aiming to limit NATO's role in the conflict. The ongoing war has prompted increased NATO assistance for Ukraine, which raises the possibility of deeper direct involvement that Russia strongly opposes. By pursuing a ceasefire, Putin may be trying to reduce tensions with NATO and avoid the risk of a larger, more direct conflict with Western powers. Such a conflict could be disastrous for Russia, considering its current military and economic challenges.

5. Preparation for Future Military Posturing

The ceasefire can also facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to those affected by the conflict, allowing much-needed relief to reach vulnerable populations. This period of reduced violence provides an opportunity for critical humanitarian assistance to be provided, including food, medical supplies, and shelter, helping to alleviate the suffering of those caught amid the conflict. Additionally, it offers an opportunity for the safe evacuation of civilians from danger zones, contributing to the protection of innocent lives and the promotion of stability in the region.

Conclusion: Strategic Implications of Putin's Ceasefire Proposal

Putin’s offer for a ceasefire appears to be a strategic move in response to internal and external pressures. The success of the negotiations depends on Ukraine’s response and the support from Western allies. Ukraine’s internal politics will also play a crucial role. The involvement of Ukrainian civil society and Western allies’ sustained commitment to support Ukraine will be essential for the success of the negotiations.

The situation is complex and multifaceted. The willingness of all parties to engage in meaningful dialogue and compromise will be vital in achieving a lasting and peaceful resolution. Additionally, the international community's involvement, particularly that of Western allies, will be pivotal in encouraging constructive negotiations and ensuring that any agreement reached is upheld.

Furthermore, the broader geopolitical context cannot be overlooked. The considerations and actions of neighboring countries and other global powers will undoubtedly influence the dynamics of the negotiations. In this intricate web of interests and influences, a comprehensive and inclusive approach to resolving the conflict is paramount.

Sources:

Al Jazeera. (2023, January 20). US, EU announce new military aid for Ukraine. [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/20/us-eu-announce-new-military-aid-for-ukraine]

BBC News. (2022, September 30). Ukraine conflict: Putin declares four areas of Ukraine as Russian. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63078426](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63078426)

Reuters. (2023, March 15). Russia's war dead exposes the gulf between Putin's ambitions and reality. (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-russia-casualties/)

The New York Times. (2023, March 2). Russia's plans for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/02/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-long-term-strategy.html)

The Interplay of U.S., China, and Taiwan Relations in a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

Introduction

The relationship between the United States and Taiwan is legally complex due to the absence of formal diplomatic ties.  Be that as it may, it has changed significantly over the years. The U.S. was one of the first nations to recognize the Republic of China (ROC) when it was established in mainland China in 1912. This alliance was strengthened during World War II when the ROC was a crucial ally against Japan. 

After World War II ended, the Chinese Civil War resumed between the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) and the Chinese Communists. This eventually led to the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China, and the relocation of the Republic of China (ROC) to Taiwan in 1949.

For many years, the U.S. recognized the Republic of China (ROC) as the legitimate government of all of China. This changed when the US established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) on January 1, 1979. This historic event was the culmination of the process that started with President Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972 and the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué, which marked a significant thaw in U.S.-China relations and paved the way for formal diplomatic recognition.

Strategic Ambiguity and Biden's Recent Statements

Despite the diplomatic shift, the US has maintained strong unofficial ties with Taiwan, including the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) on April 10, 1979, which allowed for arms sales and commits to Taiwan's defense indirectly. This act of Congress effectively institutionalized a policy of "strategic ambiguity", that of neither confirming nor denying a U.S. obligation to defend Taiwan. The TRA provided a legal basis for unofficial relations between the U.S. and Taiwan and delineated America's commitments to Taiwan's security.

However, of late, President Joe Biden has exacerbated US-China relations by openly vowing a military reaction if China attempts to conquer Taiwan. The U.S. military would protect Taiwan "if there was an unprecedented attack" on the self-governing island, Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Biden did not specify what a "unprecedented" assault on Taiwan would entail, but his remarks were the fourth time since August 2021 that he has declared that the United States would militarily protect Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion effort. In every instance, aides have walked back statements that seem to alter the long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" on the United States' readiness to support Taiwan.

The military relationship has been significant; the U.S. stationed troops and military installations on the island until 1979, and the mutual defense treaty, although eventually nullified, underscored a period of intense military cooperation. However, the geopolitical landscape shifted when the U.S. started to recognize the PRC, leading to a cessation of official diplomatic and military support for Taiwan. Despite this, the U.S. has continued to be a major supplier of defensive arms to Taiwan.

Taiwan's semiconductor industry is crucial due to its technological leadership, economic impact, strategic importance, and influence on the global supply chain. Its role in producing advanced semiconductors makes it a linchpin of the modern digital economy and a key player in global technological innovation.

In recent years, tensions between the U.S. and China have heightened due to China's increased military assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait and its broader ambitions in Asia. This has prompted a U.S. "pivot to Asia", aimed at strengthening military, economic, and diplomatic engagements in the region, partly to counteract Beijing's growing influence and partly to reassure allies like Taiwan of its commitment to their defense.

Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry

Taiwan's semiconductor industry is also a focal point in geopolitical tensions between the United States and China. Both nations recognize the strategic importance of semiconductor technology, leading to efforts to influence and protect their access to Taiwanese semiconductor capabilities.

Taiwan is a critical player in the global semiconductor supply chain. The country's semiconductor companies, particularly Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), are key suppliers for major technology firms worldwide, including Apple, Qualcomm, and Nvidia.

Within the above time frame, China's military spending and capabilities have grown considerably, reflecting its ambitions to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and assert its claims more forcefully. The U.S., in response, has reinforced its military presence in the region and engaged in significant strategic and tactical planning to ensure it can respond to potential conflicts in the strait. 

The US moves have included the fortification of alliances with other regional powers, like Japan and Australia, conducting freedom of navigation operations, and the strategic positioning of military assets.

The underlying tension between the US and China centers on a fundamental disagreement over Taiwan's sovereignty. Taiwan operates as a sovereign nation but is not widely recognized as such due to PRC pressure. The PRC views Taiwan as a renegade province and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve “reunification”. The U.S., while officially adhering to a One China Policy, shows strong support for Taiwan's self-governing status and democratic government.

The ongoing ambiguity in U.S. policy, nullified somewhat by President Joseph Biden’s recent statement, strategic military alignments in the region, and China's rising military clout all contribute to a highly volatile and uncertain future for Taiwan. How this complex interplay of diplomatic maneuvers and military preparations unfolds will significantly shape the geopolitical landscape not only for Taiwan but for the Asia-Pacific region.

Navigating the Complex Waters: The Evolution of U.S.-Taiwan Relations Amid Rising Tensions with China

The historical and continuing relationship between the United States, Taiwan, and China presents a rich tapestry of diplomatic and military entanglements. From the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912, its alliance with America during World War II, to the strategic ambiguities of the modern era, the triangular dynamics between these nations have significant global implications, particularly for regional security in the Asia-Pacific.

The ROC was established in 1912 following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, marking the beginning of its complex relationship with the U.S. This relationship was strengthened during World War II, whereupon the ROC was a key ally against Japan. However, the end of World War II also signaled the resumption of the Chinese Civil War, a conflict between the Chinese nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek and the communists under Mao Zedong that eventually forced the ROC government to retreat to Taiwan after the communist victory in 1949.

For decades, the U.S. recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of all China. This changed in 1979 when the U.S. officially recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) in a significant diplomatic shift, although, as stated earlier, it continued to maintain strong unofficial ties with Taiwan through the TRA. 

Today, the situation remains tense and complex. China views Taiwan as a renegade province and has not ruled out the use of force for reunification. The island, meanwhile, continues to operate as a sovereign entity, though it faces significant diplomatic isolation due to the One China Policy endorsed by the majority of the world under pressure from Beijing.

Conclusion

The U.S.-Taiwan-China imbroglio has deep historical roots and is further complicated by the One-China policy that the United States and many other countries officially adhere to. Taiwan's status as a self-governing entity with a democratic government adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The delicate balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region hinges on carefully navigating these intertwined relationships. Any shift in the status quo has the potential to have far-reaching impacts on global trade, security alliances, and regional stability.

Moreover, the dynamic technology landscape and economic interdependence in the region add another dimension to this complex relationship. Taiwan's crucial role in the global technology supply chain and its economic ties with both the U.S. and China further complicate the geopolitical dynamics at play. As advancements in technology continue to drive global progress, the significance of Taiwan's position in this arena cannot be underestimated, and it is likely to become an increasingly influential factor in shaping international relations.

References

Department of Defense. (2020). Annual report to Congress: Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China. Retrieved from https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF

Jiang, S. (2022, September 19). Biden leaves no doubt: Strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan is dead. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/19/biden-leaves-no-doubt-strategic-ambiguity-toward-taiwan-is-dead-00057658Nathan, A. J., & Scobell, A. (2012). China’s search for security. Columbia University Press.

Roy, D. (2003). Taiwan: A political history. Cornell University Press.

Shambaugh, D. (2013). China goes global: The partial power. Oxford University Press.

Taiwan Relations Act, 22 U.S.C. § 3301-3316 (1979). Retrieved from [https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479](https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479)

U.S. Department of State. (2020). U.S. relations with Taiwan. Retrieved from [https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/)

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. (2020). 2020 annual report to Congress. Retrieved from [https://www.uscc.gov/annual-report/2020-annual-report-congress](https://www.uscc.gov/annual-report/2020-annual-report-congress)

Wei, C. Y. (2021). The U.S.-China-Taiwan relationship and its implications for Taiwan’s security. Asia-Pacific Review, 28(1), 55-75. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2021.1882503](https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2021.1882503)