U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet in Beijing next month, and officials expect China to press the issue of "Taiwan independence" as part of the summit agenda. The term carries varied meanings and legal implications depending on who is using it. Below is a structured explanation of what the phrase denotes, Taiwan’s political and legal position today, and the mechanisms—both domestic and international—that shape the debate.
Historical background and Taiwan’s formal designation
The island known in the past as Formosa has a long human presence, with indigenous communities established for thousands of years. European powers briefly controlled portions of the island in the 1600s when the Dutch and Spanish held parts of it. In 1684 the Qing dynasty formally incorporated Taiwan as part of Fujian province, and it was elevated to its own province in 1885.
Following the Qing dynasty’s defeat in a war with Japan, Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895. After World War Two the island was handed over to the government of the Republic of China in 1945. In 1949, the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan after losing the civil war to Mao Zedong’s Communist forces on the mainland. That government continued to use the formal title Republic of China - which remains Taiwan’s formal name - while Mao established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland and asserted that it was the sole legitimate government of all China, including the island.
How Taiwan is treated internationally
For many years after 1949 the government in Taipei maintained it was the rightful government of China, but in 1971 the United Nations switched the China seat from Taipei to Beijing. Today only 12 countries maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taipei, largely small developing nations. Most major Western states and allies of the United States do not have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei, but they keep close unofficial links: they recognize Taiwanese passports for travel and host offices that function as de facto embassies.
Citizens holding Taiwanese passports can travel freely to most countries. The United States severed formal diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979, yet U.S. law requires Washington to provide Taipei with the means to defend itself. Officially, the United States takes no position on Taiwan’s sovereignty and adheres to a "One China" policy. China has said it will not rule out the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control, and has put forward a "one country, two systems" formula - akin to the arrangement offered to Hong Kong - as a model for reunification. No major political party in Taiwan supports adopting that model.
Opinion polls conducted within Taiwan have repeatedly indicated that most residents favor maintaining the existing status quo in relations with Beijing. Beijing cites United Nations Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, to argue that the international community legally recognizes Taiwan as part of China by recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate government of China. The government in Taipei rejects that interpretation, noting the resolution does not mention Taiwan or define its status. The U.S. State Department said last year that China was deliberately mis-characterizing the resolution as part of wider "coercive attempts to isolate Taiwan from the international community."
Does Taiwan function as an independent country today?
In practical terms Taiwan operates with de facto independence. The population elects its own leaders and the government in Taipei controls defined territory. Taiwan fields its own military, issues passports and uses its own currency. From Taipei’s perspective the Republic of China is a sovereign state; it argues that the People’s Republic of China cannot speak for Taiwan because Beijing has no role in how Taiwan chooses its leaders and has never governed the island.
Could Taipei formally declare itself the "Republic of Taiwan"?
A formal change of the island’s name or a unilateral declaration of a new sovereign title would not be as simple as a presidential proclamation. Under Taiwan’s constitutional framework, altering the nation’s constitutional identity would first require passage of a constitutional amendment in parliament and then approval in a referendum. The amendment process includes a high legislative threshold: at least 75% of lawmakers must vote in favour.
At present the main political parties in the legislature make such a shift difficult. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has held the presidency since 2016, and the main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), currently hold an equal number of seats in the legislature. The DPP has not attempted to pursue a constitutional change to rename the state while in power, and the KMT strongly opposes any effort to alter the Republic of China name.
Statements from Taiwan’s president on independence
China strongly objects to the current president and labels him a "separatist." Prior to winning the presidency, the president said he had been a "practical worker for Taiwan independence," a phrase that Beijing uses to support its criticism. The president has since clarified his stance, saying he intended to convey that Taiwan already functions as an independent country. Since assuming office in 2024 he has repeatedly said that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are "not subordinate to each other." Beijing interprets that language as an assertion that the two are separate nations and contends it feeds an independence narrative.
China’s legal basis for action against moves toward formal independence
China’s legislature passed the Anti-Secession Law in 2005. That law sets out a legal framework Beijing says allows the use of force to prevent Taiwan from formally seceding or if opportunities for peaceful reunification are exhausted. The law is broadly worded and does not include detailed prescriptions about how or when force would be used, leaving significant uncertainty about its precise application.
Conclusion
Whether Taiwan is "independent" depends in part on the distinction between de facto and de jure sovereignty. Taipei functions independently in practice, exercising control over its territory, governance and defence, yet formal recognition by other states remains limited. Constitutional and legislative constraints inside Taiwan make a quick or unilateral move to change the island’s formal name or status difficult. At the same time, China has both legal instruments it cites as justifying force and political positions that seek to limit Taiwan’s international space. Those competing realities frame the ongoing debate, which is likely to surface during the upcoming U.S.-China summit.