“President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some at one point.” The statement has raised questions about the intent behind the remark, as US law explicitly prohibits arms sales to China. The Department of State clarified that there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China, while the White House stated that no such plans exist. It remains unclear whether the president was making a serious diplomatic overture or engaging in rhetorical provocation during the summit.
The revelation comes at a sensitive time for US-Taiwan relations. Taipei has been waiting for months for the administration to approve a new arms sales package worth $14 billion. In May, during a meeting in Beijing, Trump indicated he was keeping the package in abeyance, describing it as a “very good negotiating chip” in dealings with China. Perdue noted that the president had already approved $11 billion in sales, with continuing conversations about the remainder. “Our support for that has not changed,” Perdue added, emphasizing that the US does not support Taiwan independence nor coercion by Beijing.
Beijing has repeatedly stated that it “resolutely opposes” Washington’s arms sales to the self-governing island, which it regards as a breakaway province. During their recent talks, Xi urged Trump to oppose “Taiwan independence,” according to a readout from the official Chinese news agency Xinhua. The Chinese leader has not ruled out the use of military force to take control of Taiwan, insisting that the status quo cannot last forever. In response, Taiwanese Deputy Foreign Minister Chen Ming-chi warned of the severe military threat posed by Beijing. “Even though China’s economy is declining, it continues investing more resources into building military capacity,” Chen said, adding that the US understands Taiwan’s defense needs.
The strategic ambiguity surrounding US commitments to Taiwan has been a point of contention for decades. While the Taiwan Relations Act requires Washington to provide Taipei with sufficient military equipment to defend itself, the US has long avoided a formal guarantee of military intervention in the event of a Chinese invasion. The current administration has maintained this ambiguous stance, with Perdue telling CNBC on Friday that there had been no change in Trump’s Taiwan policy, including on arms sales. However, the public disclosure of the president’s offer to sell weapons to China adds a new layer of complexity to the diplomatic landscape.
Beyond the Taiwan issue, the summit addressed other geopolitical pressures. Perdue stated that Trump pressed Xi on China’s support for Iran and received assurances that Beijing was adjusting its policy. “President Xi assured him that changes had been made, that they were looking into it, they had looked into it,” the ambassador said. This exchange underscores the interconnected nature of US-China relations, where trade, regional security, and third-party conflicts are increasingly negotiated as a single package.
The pause on the $14 billion Taiwan arms deal has been driven by a combination of trade negotiations and pressure on US stockpiles caused by ongoing conflicts in Iran and Ukraine. As Washington balances its support for its allies with its desire to de-escalate tensions with Beijing, the rhetoric from the summit suggests a shifting dynamic. While the legal and political barriers to selling weapons to China remain insurmountable, the very fact of the offer signals a more transactional approach to the relationship. For Taiwan, the uncertainty surrounding the future of its defense procurement remains a source of anxiety, as it navigates the strategic calculations of its two most powerful neighbors.
In the aftermath of the summit, Trump has not mentioned the specific offer to sell arms to China, stating only that Xi understands his position on Taiwan. The diplomatic fallout from Perdue’s comments continues to unfold, with both Washington and Beijing carefully managing their public statements to avoid further escalation. The incident serves as a reminder that in high-stakes diplomacy, even a single off-the-cuff remark can carry significant geopolitical weight.
