When President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, the two leaders talked about trade and drug trafficking — but avoided the one issue that could most likely draw their nations into war: Taiwan.

Both sides have reasons to keep tensions low. Trump’s administration is seeking Chinese cooperation on border enforcement and drug trafficking, while Xi faces growing economic pressures at home. Yet even as diplomacy aims for calm, U.S. defense planners have long prepared for potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

Tensions have only deepened in recent years. Washington has approved high-profile arms sales to Taiwan, U.S. lawmakers such as then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made high-profile visits, and former President Joe Biden repeatedly pledged to defend the island — only for aides to later clarify that the United States still adheres to its long-standing “One China” policy.

Meanwhile, China has dramatically increased military pressure on Taiwan through large-scale drills that simulate a blockade and invasion. The People’s Liberation Army now conducts near-constant air and naval operations encircling the island — exercises that have become larger, more complex, and more frequent. What once served as symbolic shows of force now resemble rehearsals for cutting off Taiwan’s access to the outside world.

TRUMP, XI MEET IN EFFORT TO RESOLVE TRADE TENSIONS SPARKED BY US TARIFFS

The silence from Trump and Xi contrasted sharply with the noise of those military preparations on both sides of the Pacific.

Taiwan watchers have been left guessing about just how much the United States would come to the island’s defense if China invaded — an intentional policy known as strategic ambiguity that Trump has taken to a new level.

The president earlier this month predicted optimistically that China would not invade Taiwan.

“I think we’ll be just fine with China. China doesn’t want to do that,” he said. “As it pertains to Taiwan — and that doesn’t mean it’s not the apple of his eye, because probably it is — but I don’t see anything happening.”

Compared with other conflict zones, Trump has said little about the prospect of war in the Indo-Pacific, leaving allies and adversaries alike uncertain about how far he would go to defend Taiwan.

Some analysts who favor strong U.S. support for Taiwan were relieved the issue didn’t surface, given concerns Trump might trade the island’s interests for economic concessions — such as looser Chinese mineral export restrictions, larger agricultural purchases or cooperation on curbing the precursor chemicals fueling America’s fentanyl crisis.

RUBIO SAYS COMMITMENT TO TAIWAN WON’T CHANGE AMID TRADE TALKS WITH CHINA

“I think it’s a good thing that Taiwan didn’t come up,” said Raymond Kuo, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. “There’s been a lot of concern in Taiwan, especially recently, that it would be sold out for some kind of U.S.–China grand bargain.”

Matthew Kroenig, vice president of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said he viewed the omission as “neutral,” though he would have preferred the president restate the One China policy while warning Beijing to “knock off its almost daily military coercion and gray-zone activities against Taiwan.”

Kuo noted that Taiwan has sharply increased its defense spending as tensions rise, boosting its budget by roughly 75 percent in the past two years and now allocating a greater share of government funds to defense than the U.S. does proportionally. Still, he warned that production delays in U.S. weapons deliveries — including a backlog that exceeded $20 billion at the start of this year — could weaken Taiwan’s ability to keep pace with China’s military modernization.

Taiwan has sharply increased its defense spending as tensions rise, boosting its budget by roughly 75 percent in the past two years and now allocating a greater share of government funds to defense than the U.S. does proportionally. (Photo by I-HWA CHENG/AFP via Getty Images)

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said she wasn’t surprised Taiwan stayed off the formal agenda. “There were so many trade issues that were really top of mind for both sides,” she said. “Concerns about a ‘grand bargain’ over Taiwan always seemed far-fetched.”

But Kavanagh cautioned that the United States and China cannot indefinitely avoid the subject. “Things have escalated significantly in recent years, and the long-time understandings around the One China policy and strategic ambiguity have started to erode,” she said. “It’s important for both sides to reaffirm their commitment to peaceful means of resolving their differences.”

She added that the military balance in the region has shifted “rather quickly in China’s favor,” making U.S. deterrence less credible if tensions continue to climb. “The time to pivot to Asia has probably passed,” Kavanagh said, suggesting Washington must now focus on managing competition rather than reversing it.

Inside Trump’s administration, analysts say those competing instincts are visible. “There are really two China policies,” Kroenig said. “The trade folks are looking for deals, while the defense and national-security professionals are focused on the China threat — especially the threat to Taiwan.” That divide mirrors Washington’s broader struggle to reconcile economic engagement with military deterrence.

Taiwan expert Raymond Kuo warned that production delays in U.S. weapons deliveries — including a backlog that exceeded $20 billion at the start of this year — could weaken Taiwan’s ability to keep pace with China’s military modernization. (Daniel Ceng/AP Photo)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kroenig added that Trump’s unpredictability may itself be part of his deterrent strategy. “It keeps our adversaries guessing and worried,” he said. “It may be unlikely that China would attack Taiwan under his watch.”

Still, Trump’s meeting with Xi offered little clarity on where the president ultimately stands on Taiwan — or how he would respond if Beijing tested the limits of U.S. commitment to the island’s security. For now, both leaders appear content to keep the most volatile issue in their relationship unspoken. The quiet may help avert confrontation in the short term — but it leaves one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints lingering just beneath the surface.

Tuesday is election day, and, as usual, the pundits are breathless, the predictions are dubious and the consultants are already counting their retainers. But make no mistake: Off-year elections matter. Tuesday’s results will shape the political landscape for 2026 and beyond.

Let’s start in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has decided to fight Texas Republican gerrymandering with a little creative cartography of his own.

Proposition 50, which began as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” wouldn’t just help level the playing field by handing Democrats five House seats; it would also boost Newsom’s presidential ambitions. Polls suggest it’ll pass.

When it comes to elections involving actual candidates, the main attractions are in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

In the New York City mayoral contest, Zohran Mamdani — a 34-year-old democratic socialist who seems like the kind of guy who probably buys albums on vinyl — is leading both former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (running as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

National Republicans are already making Mamdani the avatar of everything Fox News viewers fear.

President Trump went so far as calling Mamdani a “communist” and threatening to send in the troops if he wins.

One thing is for certain: Mamdani is already a symbol. If he wins, he’ll be evidence for progressives that politics can still be interesting, exciting and revolutionary. To conservatives, he’ll be evidence that Democrats have gone insane.

If you’re paying attention, these arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Across the Hudson, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (whose resume includes having been a naval officer and a federal prosecutor) is a very different kind of politician — the “I’m a competent adult, please clap” variety.

Her gubernatorial opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, is an ex-state legislator who radiates the kind of energy usually found at bowling alleys and diners. He’s the grandson of Italian immigrants, the son of blue-collar workers and the spiritual heir of every guy in a tracksuit yelling at a Jets game.

Ciattarelli came dangerously close to winning the governorship in 2021, which should be cause for concern for Sherrill, who’s sitting on a slim lead.

The main problem for Ciattarelli is Trump, who, despite his bridge-and-tunnel aesthetic, does more harm than good in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since 1988.

Trump’s termination of the Gateway Tunnel project didn’t help either. It’s one thing to be loud and populist; it’s another to cancel something that would make voters’ commutes slightly less horrible.

Speaking of commutes, a few hours south, down I-95, Virginia will also elect a new governor. Here, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — former CIA officer, former U.S. representative, professional moderate — is coasting toward victory against Republican Winsome Earle-Sears, the lieutenant governor.

Earle-Sears, a Marine, trailblazer and gadfly, is about to add “failed gubernatorial candidate” to her resume.

Her biggest headline was firing her campaign manager (a pastor who had never run a campaign before), which sounds like a metaphor for today’s GOP. Her best attack on Spanberger involved attempting to tie her to something someone else (the Democratic attorney general nominee) did (sending a violent text about a Republican politician).

Virginia has a history of electing governors from the party that opposes the sitting president, and Trump’s DOGE cuts (not to mention the current government shutdown) have outsize importance in the commonwealth.

Depending on how things shake out in these states, narratives will be set — storylines that (rightly or not) will tell experts and voters which kinds of candidates they should nominate in 2026.

For example, if Mamdani, who represents the progressive wing, wins, but Sherrill and/or Spanberger lose, the narrative will be that cautious centrism is the problem.

If the opposite occurs, the opposite narrative (radicalism is a loser!) will take root.

The postmortems write themselves: “Progressive Resurgence,” “Year of the Woman” and/or “The Return of the Center.” The problem? It’s unwise to draw too many conclusions based on Tuesday’s election results.

First, it’s misguided to assume that what works in New York City could serve as a national model.

Second, even if Sherrill and Spanberger both win, it’s impossible to know if they simply benefited from 2025 being a good year for Democrats.

Still, what happens on Tuesday will have major repercussions. Within a day of the election, everyone with a stake in the midterms and future elections will claim the outcome means what they want it to mean. Within a week, narratives will have congealed, while heroes and scapegoats will have been assigned.

And the rest of us will be right here where we started — anxious, exhausted — and dreading the fact that the 2026 midterm jockeying starts on Wednesday.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”