Taiwan benefits from the US having access to some additional chip manufacturing to support a war effort and reduce the economic cost of intervening. At the end of the day, Taiwan can resist, slow down China, and make them pay an absurdly heavy price for trying to invade, but US participation is needed to break a blockade and end the conflict.

None of this was ever being done because there an expectation that chips were going to be exported to Taiwan in the middle of a conflict.

Yes, like every other security partner, Trump's immature and inconsistence isolationism makes things worse and unstable. But it was hardly the case that intervention would have be 100% assured under any other President, and it's not the case that that its at 0% under Trump. Improving the odds of intervention, slightly, regardless of who is in office, benefits Taiwan.

Moreover, Putin didn't attack US forces when he invaded Ukraine. There is a significant chance that the PRC would launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on the US and Japan at the outset of a campaign against Taiwan. That dramatically increases the odds of the US being involved in the conflict over the long term. Sure, it's also likely (probably more likely) that the PRC might try more limited form of coercion instead, but one ought to be prepare for the range of possible options.

It is worth observing that one of the major reasons why US conservative China hawks give for not wanting to support Ukraine is because it's not a vital US interest, and they want to focus on preparing for war with China and hopefully deterring it.

It is really unclear you should say why that the Ukraine is being treated "poorly", it is being treated how you'd expect an more isolationist administration who thinks it is a strategic distraction would treat it. The current US administration may well be wrong about this--there's definitely a case to be made that further increasing the cost to Putin for aggression increases deterrence in Asia. But the current administration was very clear in the election about how they felt about Ukraine, and they won.

The argument that unless Trump treats Ukraine "not poorly" no one, anywhere, ever, ought to anything to bend the curve to increase the odds the the US intervening on their behalf seems rather sentimental and unpragmatic.

It seems likely that Taiwan leaders have a better grasp than you do of the strategic choices they are making, and that random feelings about how "poorly Ukraine has been treated" don't enter into it.

If you just hate Trump, it would be easier and more direct to say that, rather than seeming to claim that other people in the world are acting irrationally.

Breaking Russia would mean less money and resources for China and more time for NATO, the thing conservatives seem to think is stupid / unimportant to prepare. It’s probably too late now but the opportunity was there in January.