China has strongly criticized the U.S. after the U.S. State Department quietly removed a statement from its website that explicitly said Washington does not support Taiwan’s independence.
Beijing called the revision a “serious regression” in the U.S. stance on Taiwan and accused Washington of sending a dangerous signal to pro-independence forces on the island. The Chinese government has demanded that the U.S. “correct its mistakes” and reaffirm its commitment to the One China policy.
The controversial change appeared in an updated fact sheet on U.S.-Taiwan relations last week. The previous version included the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence,” but the updated text omits that statement while reaffirming U.S. support for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations “where applicable.”
Despite the change, a U.S. spokesperson insisted that Washington’s position remains unchanged. The U.S. “opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo” and remains committed to the One China policy, which recognizes Beijing as the sole legal government of China while maintaining unofficial ties with Taiwan.
Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung welcomed the updated wording, calling it a “positive, Taiwan-friendly” shift.
However, Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province that must eventually be reunified—by force if necessary. In its regular press briefing on Monday, China’s foreign ministry warned that Washington’s revised language further fuels tensions.
“This sends a wrong and serious signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun. “It is another example of the U.S. stubbornly persisting with its wrong policy of using Taiwan to contain China.”
The change comes amid heightened tensions in the Taiwan Strait, with increased Chinese military activity near the island and growing U.S. support for Taiwan’s self-defense. The revision signals a potential shift in how Washington articulates its Taiwan policy, even as it continues to maintain strategic ambiguity on the issue.