Ryan Hass | Director at John L. Thornton China Center | The Brookings Institution website
Taiwan’s recent recall vote, which took place on July 26, did not result in the removal of any Kuomintang (KMT) legislators. All 24 KMT legislators facing recall retained their seats, despite a grassroots campaign by supporters of President Lai Ching-te and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The effort was sparked by frustration over legislative gridlock, particularly concerning changes to the balance of power between the executive branch and the Legislative Yuan, as well as delays in passing a government-wide annual budget that included proposed increases in defense spending.
Supporters of President Lai questioned whether opposition lawmakers were acting under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and argued that they should be removed for national defense reasons. KMT legislators countered that their actions were aimed at providing oversight and ensuring fiscal discipline.
The outcome was seen as a setback for Lai and his supporters. “Voters demonstrated through their vote that they did not subscribe to the recall proponents’ arguments that KMT legislators were obstructing Lai’s agenda at Beijing’s direction. Voters instead favored allowing elected KMT legislators to fulfill their terms in office. Not even accusations of treason were enough to galvanize Taiwan public opinion against the KMT legislators up for recall,” wrote Richard C. Bush and Ryan Hass, both affiliated with the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings.
The divided government persists following the failed recall effort. Looking ahead, analysts suggest that whether or not the KMT can build on this result will depend on its ability to appeal to young voters, who are often seen as swing voters due to their disaffection with both major parties. The next significant test for both parties will come during local elections scheduled for late 2026; historically, the KMT has performed well in these contests and currently controls 14 out of 22 local government districts.
However, political momentum in Taiwan can shift rapidly. The DPP suffered heavy losses in local elections in 2018 but rebounded after public reaction to events in Hong Kong shifted voter sentiment.
From Beijing’s perspective, a divided Taiwanese government is preferable because it is believed that checks and balances reduce the likelihood of moves toward formal independence. During the recall campaign, Chinese officials and state media supported KMT legislators and accused DPP leaders of suppressing dissent. Afterward, Chen Binhua from China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said: “the DPP ‘has lost public support and its policies run counter to the true mainstream public opinion in Taiwan.’” He added that “the recall campaign’s failure symbolized public opposition to the ‘DPP’s manipulation of democracy and monopolization of power.’”
The authors note that Beijing likely feels relieved by this outcome since it may hinder DPP efforts to increase defense spending or pass other major initiatives.
In Washington, there was no official comment from Trump administration officials regarding either the recall process or its results—a sign of deliberate non-interference in Taiwan's internal politics. The United States remains focused on peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. If continued political gridlock weakens Taiwan's investment in self-defense capabilities, concerns could grow about readiness; conversely, if future political contests center on maintaining peace rather than deepening divisions, this would be welcomed by U.S. policymakers.
The response from Beijing going forward remains uncertain—whether it sees validation for its approach or an opportunity for more assertive action toward Taiwan may determine future cross-Strait dynamics.
“If Trump is focused on protecting his self-image of strength and resolve, he could approve efforts to demonstrate greater support for Taiwan to maintain a strategic equilibrium in the Taiwan Strait,” wrote Bush and Hass. They add: “Conversely, if Trump is in dealmaking mode with Chinese President Xi Jinping...he could view adjustments to America’s long-standing policy toward Taiwan as a necessary concession.”
The commentary concludes that Trump’s approach could oscillate depending on circumstances but emphasizes America’s core interest: preserving peace and stability across the strait.
“Trump views his unpredictability as a strategic asset,” write Bush and Hass. “This will make it even more important that Trump and his senior advisors operate with a clear view of America’s long-term strategic interests, topmost of which is preserving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”
