The U.S.-China Tech Truce Fallacy: Why High-Level Summits Fail to Resolve Structural Friction Over Advanced Semiconductors and Taiwan

The high-profile diplomatic engagements between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are frequently heralded as crucial turning points capable of stabilising the world’s most critical bilateral relationship.¹ The bilateral summits—such as the trade truce negotiated in Busan, South Korea, in October 2025 ³, and the subsequent state visit to Beijing on May 14–15, 2026 ¹—have been framed by official readouts as historic steps toward building “a constructive relationship of strategic stability”.¹ These meetings, heavily promoted in Chinese media as a “historic reset” ⁵, have sought to project an image of mutual understanding, complete with public commitments on agricultural purchases and aviation deals.¹

Yet, beneath this performative diplomacy lies a stark and unavoidable reality: the fundamental structural friction over advanced semiconductor technology and the geopolitical destiny of Taiwan remains completely untouched by high-level dialogue.⁶ While both administrations orchestrate transactional compromises on non-sensitive goods to placate domestic audiences ¹, they are simultaneously executing non-negotiable strategic policies designed to hollow out each other’s technological capabilities and secure unilateral dominance.⁹ This report analyses why the concept of a U.S.-China “tech truce” is a fallacy, demonstrating how the structural imperatives of national security, economic sovereignty, and technological hegemony have locked both superpowers into an irreversible, zero-sum decoupling.¹⁰

The Illusion of Strategic Stability and the Performative Summitry

The May 2026 Beijing Summit was characterised by a profound asymmetry in how both capitals interpreted its outcomes.⁵ For Washington, the summit was a transactional theatre designed to deliver tangible, quantifiable commercial victories to American voters ahead of the critical November midterm elections.¹² The Trump administration focused heavily on securing massive commodity purchase agreements to offset trade deficits and support domestic industries.⁴ In contrast, Beijing approached the summit with a quiet, long-term confidence, refusing to define the relationship through a “laundry list” of American wins.¹² President Xi instead reiterated China’s non-negotiable “red lines” regarding sovereignty, security, and development, while positioning China as an equal partner seeking strategic coexistence on its own terms.¹²

To institutionalise this transactional relationship, the two nations chartered the U.S.-China Board of Trade and the U.S.-China Board of Investment.⁴ These bodies are tasked with managing bilateral commercial relations and implementing the purchases agreed upon in Beijing.⁴ However, this administrative mechanism is designed to manage a controlled economic partition rather than foster integration.⁸ By design, the board’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to “non-sensitive” goods, effectively walling off any sector that has a bearing on the future of advanced computing, artificial intelligence, or military modernisation.⁴

Performative Diplomacy vs. Structural Realities at the Beijing Summit

This structural division demonstrates that the Board of Trade is not a bridge to cooperation, but rather an administrative tool to manage a controlled economic partition.⁸ The most sensitive and intractable issues—specifically, advanced semiconductor export controls—were entirely sidelined during the official discussions.⁶ U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed that semiconductor export policies were not even a major topic of debate, characterising the acquisition of advanced chips as a purely “sovereign decision” for Beijing.¹⁷

Furthermore, the superficial nature of the summit was highlighted by a surprising exchange on cyber security.⁶ When asked if he raised the issue of persistent Chinese cyberattacks with President Xi, President Trump publicly conceded parity in the two countries’ offensive operations, stating, “He talked about attacks that we did in China. You know, what they do, we do too”.⁶ This public concession bypassed decades of intelligence assessments framing China as the most active and persistent threat to U.S. infrastructure, illustrating how high-level summits often prioritise personal rapport over structural defense.⁶

The Blocked H200 and the Failure of U.S. Carrot-and-Stick Diplomacy

The limits of summitry are most visible in the semiconductor sector, where Washington’s “technology gap strategy” continues to clash with Beijing’s push for technological sovereignty.¹⁹ Since October 2022, the United States has enforced a strict export control regime designed to prevent China from accessing cutting-edge chips and the equipment needed to manufacture them.¹⁰ This strategy was intensified during President Trump’s second term when, in April 2025, the administration closed existing loopholes by banning even the lower-performing Nvidia H20 GPUs, which had been custom-designed to fall just below previous export control thresholds.¹⁰ This sudden restriction forced Nvidia to write down $4.5 billion in inventory and severely threatened its revenue streams in China, which had historically accounted for 95% of its AI chip market share.¹⁰

In a dramatic policy pivot in December 2025, the Trump administration attempted a carrot-and-stick approach.¹⁰ The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) finalised a rule on January 16, 2026, permitting the conditional export of Nvidia’s highly advanced H200 AI processor—its second most powerful GPU—to Chinese customers.¹⁰ This concession was heavily lobbied for by Nvidia and accompanied by the high-profile inclusion of CEO Jensen Huang in the presidential delegation to Alaska and Beijing.⁶ On paper, the H200 export framework appeared to be a significant U.S. concession, but it came with highly restrictive, intrusive security conditions designed to maintain U.S. oversight over Chinese tech infrastructure.¹⁰

The Nvidia H200 Conditional Export License Framework

Despite this elaborate regulatory architecture, the policy failed to produce a single shipment.¹⁸ As of mid-2026, not a single Nvidia H200 chip has crossed the Pacific.¹⁸ The blockage did not originate in Washington, but rather in Beijing.¹⁷ The Chinese government intervened directly, refusing to authorise domestic technology firms to fulfil their purchase contracts with Nvidia.¹⁷

According to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Beijing actively blocked imports to steer capital and research directly toward domestic chip manufacturers like Huawei.¹⁸ From Beijing’s strategic perspective, accepting the H200 under Washington’s highly intrusive surveillance, verification, and taxation regime was unacceptable.¹⁸ Rather than allowing its technology champions to become dependent on heavily regulated U.S. silicon, the Chinese Communist Party chose to use Nvidia’s forced absence as a historic window of opportunity to build a fully indigenous, self-sufficient semiconductor ecosystem.¹⁸

China’s Sovereign AI Stack: Huawei, SMIC, and the Algorithmic Workarounds

Beijing’s rejection of Nvidia’s H200 is driven by its growing confidence in its domestic semiconductor and AI hardware industry, led by Huawei Technologies and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC).¹⁸ Rather than stalling under U.S. export controls, the Chinese domestic market is building a self-sufficient “sovereign AI” stack designed to bypass Western technology entirely.¹⁰ This strategy aligns directly with the priorities of China’s Fifteenth Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), adopted in March 2026, which prioritises high-technology self-reliance and the domestic substitution of critical equipment.¹

SMIC has made significant progress in logic manufacturing despite being denied access to ASML’s advanced Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems.¹⁰ By pushing deep ultraviolet (DUV) multi-patterning lithography to its physical limits, SMIC has scaled up high-volume production of its N+3 process, a highly capable 5nm-class node.²⁰ Although industry analysts estimate SMIC’s yield at a modest 30% to 40%—far below the yields achieved by TSMC—the Chinese government aggressively subsidises these production inefficiencies, treating the manufacturing of 5nm logic as a non-negotiable matter of national security rather than a commercial enterprise.²⁰

To lock in this domestic transition, Beijing implemented a strict “50% Mandate,” requiring all domestic fabrication plants (fabs) to source at least half of their manufacturing equipment from local vendors.²⁰ This policy has caused order backlogs for domestic equipment manufacturers like Naura Technology Group and Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment (SMEE), while causing ASML’s projected revenues in China to plunge.²⁰

This logic breakthrough has enabled Huawei to mass-produce the Ascend 950 series, particularly the Ascend 950PR, which entered mass production in March 2026.¹⁸ This chip represents a major milestone in China’s drive to eliminate dependence on Nvidia’s software and hardware ecosystem.²³

Advanced Computing Architectures: U.S. vs. Chinese AI Hardware Stacks

In addition to hardware improvements, Huawei’s unveiling of the “Tau Scaling Law” (-scaling) has altered the long-term trajectory of the chip race.²⁶ Developed under the leadership of He Tingbo, president of Huawei’s semiconductor division, the Tau Scaling Law is an architectural and design-level workaround that enables advanced transistor packing without requiring EUV lithography tools.²⁶ Huawei claims this pathway will allow China to achieve a transistor density equivalent to a 1.4-nanometer process by 2031, with a long-term goal of increasing system-level performance 1,000-fold by 2035.²⁶

However, this hardware sovereignty comes with a severe physical cost: the power penalty of bypassing EUV lithography.²⁵ For instance, Huawei’s CloudMatrix 384 cluster, which utilises 384 Ascend 910C processors to match the aggregate processing power of Nvidia’s NVL72, requires approximately 560 kilowatts of power.²⁵ This is a massive 4.1-fold power penalty compared to the NVL72 cluster, which draws only 145 kilowatts.²⁵ To mitigate these infrastructure bottlenecks, China is aggressively scaling up its domestic memory capacity, with ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) targeting the production of 2 million HBM stacks in 2026 to support Huawei’s rapid deployment.²⁵

The DeepSeek Catalyst and the Distillation Paradox

The practical viability of China’s sovereign AI stack was demonstrated by the early 2026 release of DeepSeek V4.¹⁶ Unlike previous Chinese frontier models that relied on smuggled or legacy Nvidia hardware, DeepSeek developed and deployed V4 directly on Huawei’s Ascend platform, specifically utilising the Ascend 950PR and Ascend 910C.²³ The transition required months of collaborative engineering to rewrite DeepSeek’s core algorithms to run efficiently on Huawei’s CANN software, effectively breaking the industry’s long-standing dependence on Nvidia’s CUDA framework.²³

The DeepSeek V4 model represents a significant achievement.¹⁶ Utilising a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture, the model boasts a total parameter count of up to 1 trillion, while activating around 37 billion parameters per inference—representing a more than twofold scale increase over the previous V3 version.²³ This launch has triggered massive commercial momentum within China.²⁴ Anticipating the rollout, major Chinese tech giants—including Alibaba, ByteDance, and Tencent—placed large-scale orders for Huawei’s Ascend 950PR, driving Huawei’s AI chip revenue target for 2026 to $12 billion, a 60% increase year-on-year.¹⁸

However, this hardware sovereignty has revealed a deeper contradiction: the “Distillation Paradox”.²⁷ While China is successfully localising its physical hardware stack, its premier AI laboratories remain structurally dependent on conceptual knowledge extracted from Western frontier models.¹⁶

Both OpenAI and Anthropic have documented “distillation attacks” originating from Chinese entities, which use coordinated proxy networks and fake accounts to query Western models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o millions of times.¹⁶ This systematic data harvesting allows Chinese developers to train their own open-source models, such as DeepSeek V4, at a fraction of the cost.¹⁶

The launch of DeepSeek V4 was delayed by several months as engineers worked to translate these distilled models into Huawei’s native software architecture, showcasing that while the physical supply chain is decoupling, the intellectual layer remains deeply, albeit illicitly, interdependent.²³

The Fractured Silicon Shield and the U.S.-Taiwan Trust Deficit

The technological competition is inextricably linked to the geopolitical fate of Taiwan, which manufactures over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors.²⁹ Historically, Taiwan’s dominant position in the global tech ecosystem has served as a “Silicon Shield”.²⁹ Because a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would immediately halt global advanced computing, both Washington and Beijing had a shared interest in maintaining the status quo, and the U.S. was compelled to guarantee Taiwan’s security to protect its own economic lifeblood.²⁹

Under President Trump’s second term, however, U.S. industrial policy has taken a transactional approach that is actively eroding this Silicon Shield.³¹ Guided by the belief that relying on imported semiconductors is a fundamental national security vulnerability, the Trump administration has aggressively reshored manufacturing capacity.²⁹

In a bilateral trade agreement signed in February 2026, Washington tied tariffs on semiconductor-related imports to Taiwanese capital investment in the United States, pushing for the reshoring of up to 40% of U.S. demand for advanced logic.³¹ While TSMC celebrated its $100 billion expansion in Arizona under U.S. pressure, TSMC executives and industry analysts have publicly noted that the Arizona facilities, once fully operational, will only account for 5% to 7% of TSMC’s total global output.²⁹

Despite these practical limitations, the political message of reshoring has had a destabilising effect on Taiwanese public opinion.³¹ The push to replicate Taiwan’s semiconductor ecosystem on U.S. soil is widely perceived in Taipei as a hedge that makes Taiwan less strategically indispensable to Washington.³¹ This perception has fueled a severe trust deficit; a 2026 poll by the Democracy Foundation revealed that a majority of Taiwanese citizens now doubt whether the United States would intervene militarily to defend the island in the event of a Chinese blockading action or invasion.³¹

This erosion of trust has been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s demand that Taiwan immediately increase its defence spending to 10% of its GDP—a demand that shows a disregard for Taiwan’s complex economic and political realities.³¹

Taiwan’s Defence Budget Mismatch: U.S. Demands vs. Local Realities

To put this in perspective, a 10% GDP defence budget would require approximately $100 billion, which represents nearly the entire total annual budget of the Taiwanese government in 2026.31 Such a target is politically and economically impossible for several reasons:

• Sluggish Non-Tech Economy: While Taiwan’s artificial intelligence and semiconductor export sectors are flourishing, its broader domestic economy is stagnant, with voters pressuring the government to address high housing costs and stagnant wages rather than purchasing foreign weapons systems.³¹
• A Highly Polarised Legislature: The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under President William Lai Ching-te holds the executive branch, but the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party control the Legislative Yuan.³¹ This divided government has polarised the budget process, forcing deep compromises on defence spending to fund domestic healthcare, social security, and education.³¹
• Undelivered Weapons Backlog: The KMT-aligned opposition has strongly resisted U.S. pressure to authorise larger defence outlays, pointing out that Washington has failed to deliver billions of dollars in military hardware that Taiwan has already purchased, including critical missile systems.³¹

This friction has been further complicated by comments from President Trump suggesting that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are under consideration as a potential “negotiating chip” in broader trade talks with Beijing.²⁹ This transactional framing of Taiwan’s security has undermined the traditional deterrence policy that has governed the Taiwan Strait since the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.² Rather than deterring Beijing, the combined effect of semiconductor reshoring and transactional diplomacy has signalled a potential U.S. retreat, prompting Taiwan’s political factions to reassess their security calculations under mounting economic and military coercion from the mainland.³¹

Weaponised Interdependence, Capital Realism, and the New Global Redundancy

The failure of high-level summits to resolve these technological and territorial disputes has accelerated a process of “weaponised interdependence”.⁹ Rather than operating in a globalised market governed by shared multilateral rules, both superpowers are actively weaponising their economic chokepoints to exploit each other’s structural vulnerabilities.⁹ While the United States weaponises its dominance over advanced electronic design automation (EDA) software, IP blocks, and lithography tools ¹⁰, China has retaliated by weaponising its near-monopoly over the critical minerals and processing technologies that underpin the global high-tech and defence manufacturing supply chains.⁹

The impact of these controls on the U.S. technology and defence sectors has been severe.¹⁴ Despite the temporary pauses negotiated during the Busan summit, Beijing’s licensing process has remained slow and highly selective, with shipments to U.S. defence contractors and advanced semiconductor manufacturers remaining well below pre-restriction levels.³

Critical Mineral Chokepoints: The Strategic Impact of China’s Export Controls

The price of yttrium has surged 15-fold since China’s export controls took effect, disrupting the production of thermal barrier coatings for aerospace turbine blades and insulating coatings for semiconductor manufacturing equipment.¹⁴ Similarly, the supply of indium, which is critical for indium phosphide-based photonic chips that process data using light in advanced AI data centres, has fallen by 77% to the United States.¹⁴ Major American optical component manufacturers, such as Coherent, face significant cost increases and delayed capacity expansion as they struggle to secure non-Chinese sources of indium.¹⁴

Rather than yielding to these supply chain pressures, multinational corporations and financial institutions have adapted to this permanent state of geopolitical friction through a process known as “capital realism”.¹¹ Recognizing that high-level summits will not restore the pre-2018 globalised trading order, capital flows have adapted to the constraints.¹¹

Firms are no longer pursuing absolute efficiency or centralised manufacturing hubs.¹¹ Instead, they are investing in jurisdictional redundancy.¹¹ TSMC is building fabrication plants across the U.S., Japan, and Europe, with each facility operating under distinct regulatory and security regimes.¹¹

Simultaneously, manufacturing capital is rerouting through “bridge countries” in Southeast Asia (specifically ASEAN members), India, and parts of the Middle East.¹¹ These regions are not passive bystanders; they are actively positioning themselves as the infrastructure upon which a bifurcated global economy runs.¹¹ By maintaining open economic relations with both Washington and Beijing, these bridge nations allow multinational firms to operate across geopolitical divides, assemble and package components, and secure materials without committing fully to either system.¹¹

Conclusion

The persistent failure of high-level summits to resolve the U.S.-China tech war is not the result of poor diplomatic execution or a lack of communication between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.² Rather, it is the inevitable consequence of a fundamental misalignment of national interests that no amount of transactional diplomacy can bridge.¹ The establishment of the Board of Trade and the negotiation of agricultural and aircraft purchase targets serve as a useful diplomatic shock absorber, providing a framework of “managed instability” that prevents the economic relationship from collapsing into immediate conflict.⁸

However, the core drivers of the technological rivalry—advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and the territorial and technological sovereignty of Taiwan—are viewed by both Washington and Beijing as existential issues.¹ For the United States, maintaining a decisive technological lead over China is a national security imperative.⁹ For China, achieving total self-reliance and breaking free from Western technological chokepoints is a matter of civilizational survival and sovereign pride.²⁰

Because these two positions are structurally irreconcilable, the global technology landscape has moved past the possibility of a permanent truce.¹⁰ The future of technology will not be defined by integrated global markets and shared standards, but by parallel, incompatible stacks, bifurcated supply chains, and a continuous struggle for dominance over the physical and digital foundations of the modern world.¹⁰

Disclaimer

This report is compiled for educational, academic, and strategic risk-analysis purposes.¹ The information, data points, and technical assessments presented herein are based on publicly available research material, expert interviews, and trade reports current as of mid-2026.¹⁹ This document does not constitute formal legal, financial, investment, or policy advice, and should not be used as the sole basis for business decisions or asset allocation in the semiconductor, artificial intelligence, or defence sectors.¹¹ All corporate entities, product names, and technological standards cited are the property of their respective owners.²⁰

References

1. Future of China trade policy as US-China relations evolve, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/06/china-trade-policy-us-relations/
2. Trump-Xi Summit: Cautious Progress on Trade, Ties, and Some ‘Win-Wins’, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.american.edu/sis/news/trump-xi-summit-progress-on-trade-ties.cfm
3. What’s next for US–China relations? | World Economic Forum, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/05/us-china-relations-trump-xi-summit-areas-cooperation/
4. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Historic Deals with China, Delivering for American Workers, Farmers, and Industry – The White House, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-historic-deals-with-china-delivering-for-american-workers-farmers-and-industry/
5. Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/05/trump-xi-summit-united-states-china-relationship-stability
6. What the Trump-Xi Summit Revealed, and Left Unsaid, About U.S. …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-trump-xi-summit-revealed-and-left-unsaid-about-us-china-tech-competition
7. Trump-Xi summit in Beijing yields modest results, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.bofit.fi/en/monitoring/weekly/2026/vw202622_2/
8. Post U.S.-China Summit: Managed Instability, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2026/05/post-us-china-summit-and-managed-instability
9. The Future of American Strategy: Weaponizing Interdependence, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-future-of-american-strategy-weaponizing-interdependence
10. US China Chip War 2026: Export Impact on Semiconductors – Oplexa, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://oplexa.com/us-china-chip-war-2026-semiconductor/
11. Why U.S.-China Decoupling Isn’t Happening – Robin Hu, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/why-us-china-decoupling-isnt-happening
12. China, centre stage, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-centre-stage
13. Trump-Xi Summit in Beijing: Managing the World’s Most Important Relationship – CSIS, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/trump-xi-summit-beijing-managing-worlds-most-important-relationship
14. US Minerals Gap Persists Despite Beijing Talks – Mexico Business News, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://mexicobusiness.news/mining/news/us-minerals-gap-persists-despite-beijing-talks
15. Chip export controls not major topic in China talks, US trade rep Greer says – 97.9 WEVE, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://979weve.com/2026/05/14/chip-export-controls-not-major-topic-in-china-talks-us-trade-rep-greer-tells-bloomberg-news/
16. DeepSeek V4 Signals a New Phase in the U.S.-China AI Rivalry, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/deepseek-v4-signals-a-new-phase-in-the-u-s-china-ai-rivalry
17. US-China summit sees no breakthrough on semiconductor dispute – Communications Today, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/us-china-summit-sees-no-breakthrough-on-semiconductor-dispute/
18. US-China Summit Fails to Break Semiconductor Impasse; China Says It Will “Use Its Own Chips Instead of Nvidia”, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://finance.biggo.com/news/Z1P5Np4BmHHDnbgy8X_O
19. Semiconductor chokepoints define U.S.-China rivalry – The Japan …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2026/05/18/japan/us-china-semiconductor-chokepoints/
20. Silicon Sovereignty: How Huawei and SMIC are Neutralizing US Export Controls in 2026, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://investor.wedbush.com/wedbush/article/tokenring-2026-1-28-silicon-sovereignty-how-huawei-and-smic-are-neutralizing-us-export-controls-in-2026
21. USTR Greer: Chinese Firms Approved for Nvidia H200 Chips, but …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/ustr-greer-chinese-firms-approved-for-nvidia-h200-chips-but-no-shipments-yet
22. China’s Dual Economy: When Strategic Ambition Hollows Out the Foundation, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.prcleader.org/post/chinasdualeconomy-whenstrategicambitionhollowsoutthefoundation
23. [News] Decoding DeepSeek V4: How Huawei’s Ascend 950 PR Is …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.trendforce.com/news/2026/04/07/news-decoding-deepseek-v4-how-huaweis-ascend-950-pr-is-powering-chinas-push-to-break-cuda-dependence/
24. Huawei expects AI chip sales to surge at least 60% in 2026 …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://seekingalpha.com/news/4583644-huawei-expects-ai-chip-sales-to-surge-at-least-60-in-2026
25. Huawei / HiSilicon Spotlight — Ascend AI Chips, SMIC, China Bifurcation & Export Controls | SemiconductorX, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://semiconductorx.com/spotlight-huawei-hisilicon.html
26. Another ‘DeepSeek moment’? Huawei milestone alters China …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2026/05/28/another-deepseek-moment-huawei-milestone-alters-china-trajectory-in-chip-race-analysts
27. China Bulletin: April 2, 2026 – U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.uscc.gov/trade-bulletins/china-bulletin-april-2-2026
28. AI Geopolitics News: China AI Intelligence on US Forces, DeepSeek on Huawei Chips, Pentagon AI — April 7, 2026 | AI Weekly, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://aiweekly.co/learning-ai/artificial-intelligence/ai-geopolitics-news-china-ai-intelligence-us-forces-deepseek
29. Taiwan will likely play its silicon ‘Trump card’ in security talks with the US, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/4586108/taiwan-silicon-trump-card-us-security-talks/
30. Taiwan Independence Stance Challenges US-China Relations, Risks Tech Supply Chains, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.hurlburtlibrary.org/expert-time/Taiwan-Independence-Stance-Challenges-USChina-Relations-Risks-Tech-Supply-Chains-12-8233
31. The Trust Deficit: Will US-Taiwan Frictions Weaken Deterrence …, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/2026/the-trust-deficit-will-us-taiwan-frictions-weaken-deterrence/
32. China & Taiwan Update, May 29, 2026 | ISW, accessed on June 2, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-may-29-2026/