# The first 2025 Great Recall wave fails to unseat any targeted KMT legislator Date: 2025 ## The fact On 26 July 2025 voters rejected recall bids against 24 KMT legislators and Hsinchu’s mayor. A second wave on 23 August also failed. Civic groups had aimed to flip the LY toward the DPP. Lai as DPP chair had moved from distance to party support. A recall is not a finding that every target uniquely colluded with Beijing. ## Context The 1 February 2024 split sat as parent. Neighbouring Maanshan referendum shared the August ballot as a child. He did not sit as CEC. 1 February LY split is the parent. 23 August second wave is a child of the same campaign. The president of the Republic of China (Taiwan) is head of state under the Additional Articles and commander-in-chief. He does not write a PLA communique, a TSMC capex print, or a Legislative Yuan majority. A National Day address is not a completed interceptor. An inaugural line is not a PLA missile. A special-act press conference is not a passed statute. [William Lai](/people/lai-ching-te) is a common English name for the same person; the stored English name is Lai Ching-te. ## Evidence and sources Central Election Commission Taiwan carries the official instrument or communique. The New York Times records the same dated act independently. ## Significance The path is polarisation and [social cohesion](/drivers/social-cohesion): a completed mass-recall that removed nobody and left the LY split in place. ## What is established and what is not Established: 26 July 2025 first-wave failure, independently reported; all 24 KMT targets retained. Not established: that every named legislator uniquely passed secrets, or a unique later defence-budget coefficient from that Saturday. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. He later backed party support. Voters and CEC certified the no.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies The first 2025 Great Recall wave fails to unseat any targeted KMT legislator, not a later speech about The first 2025 Great Recall wave fails to unseat any targeted KMT legislator. Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. The first 2025 Great Recall wave fails to unseat any targeted KMT legislator on 2025-07-26 is not a licence to treat every later Central Election Commission Taiwan communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average The first 2025 Great Recall wave fails to unseat any targeted KMT legislator into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to Civic petitioners started the wave. He later backed party support. Voters and CEC certified the no. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series. ## People - Lai Ching-te: https://factrail.ai/people/lai-ching-te ## Drivers - Political Polarization: https://factrail.ai/drivers/political-polarization - Social Cohesion: https://factrail.ai/drivers/social-cohesion ## Sources - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/25/world/asia/taiwans-recall-china.html - https://web.cec.gov.tw/english/ ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/tw-lai-recall-2025