截至2025年底，國民黨（藍）與民眾黨（白）在國會取得多數優勢後，積極推出一系列針對台灣長期發展的合作計劃與法案。其中最具代表性的是「台灣未來帳戶」計劃以及涉及國會職權與財政劃分法的制度性改革。這些措施展現了藍白合作的政策野心，但同時也伴隨著制度與社會風險。

首先，「台灣未來帳戶」（又稱國民帳戶）計劃於2025年12月由藍白共同提出，主要目標在於應對人口少子化問題，同時提升青年世代的競爭力。計劃中，政府將為每一名新生兒設立專屬帳戶，累積資金至成年後，可用於教育、創業或購屋。這一做法在資源長期投資與社會公平方面具有明顯優勢：它試圖縮小貧富差距，讓經濟弱勢家庭的孩子也能擁有追夢的起點資金。然而，該計劃同時面臨財政負擔與違憲爭議。部分執政黨認為，若透過特別預算撥款，可能觸及「立法權干預行政權」的問題；此外，全面推行也可能排擠現有社會福利或國防經費，帶來長期財政壓力。

其次，在制度性改革方面，藍白持續推動《財政收支劃分法》與《憲法訴訟法》的修正，意在強化立法院對行政機關的監督權並提升地方政府的自主性。此類改革的優點在於深化民主制衡，避免「一黨獨大」或「民主獨裁」，並透過財政下放促進地方均衡發展。然而，實施過程中也暴露憲政運作僵局：2025年12月，憲法法庭已宣告《憲訴法》部分修正條文違憲，導致立法院與司法及行政機關間的緊張關係升高，甚至出現「癱瘓憲法法庭」的指控。此外，部分民生預算如TPASS月票與生育補助因預算爭議無法如期執行，也引發社會關注。

在能源與兩岸政策方面，藍白亦達成部分共識。雙方主張兼顧「環境永續」與能源穩定，重新討論核能議題，包括核四啟動或現有核電延役，以確保供電穩定並抑制電價上漲。同時，藍白倡議在對等尊嚴原則下重啟兩岸對話，尋求區域和平穩定。然而，核能重啟仍面臨核廢料最終處置的高度爭議，且缺乏具體落實方案；兩岸政策也引發部分民意擔憂，認為法案可能過於傾向中國，甚至影響國家安全。

總結來說，藍白在 2025 年底提出的未來計劃展現強烈的監督思維與資源重新分配的意圖，對牽制執政權力、推動長期發展具有積極意義。然而，涉及違憲爭議的法案以及預算執行延宕，則引發社會對憲政秩序穩定與民生保障的擔憂。這反映出台灣政治運作在推動制度創新與維持民生平衡間的持續挑戰，也凸顯出藍白合作模式在實務上需要更細緻的政策設計與社會溝通。

By the end of 2025, with the Kuomintang (KMT, “Blue”) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP, “White”) holding a parliamentary majority, they actively launched a series of cooperative plans and legislative proposals aimed at Taiwan’s long-term development. Among these, the most representative were the “Taiwan Future Accounts” initiative and institutional reforms concerning congressional powers and fiscal allocation laws. These measures demonstrated the policy ambitions of the Blue-White coalition, while also carrying potential institutional and social risks.

The “Taiwan Future Accounts” (also called the National Account) plan, jointly proposed by Blue and White in December 2025, aimed to address Taiwan’s declining birthrate and enhance the competitiveness of the younger generation. Under this plan, the government would establish dedicated accounts for each newborn, accumulating funds that could later be used for education, entrepreneurship, or home purchases. This approach offered clear advantages in terms of long-term resource investment and social equity, as it sought to reduce wealth gaps and provide children from economically disadvantaged families with starting capital. However, the plan also faced fiscal burdens and constitutional concerns. Some ruling-party critics argued that using special budget allocations might constitute a violation of the separation of legislative and executive powers, and full implementation could crowd out existing social welfare or defense spending, creating long-term fiscal pressure.

In terms of institutional reform, Blue and White continued to push amendments to the Fiscal Allocation Act and the Constitutional Litigation Act, aiming to strengthen legislative oversight over administrative agencies and enhance local government autonomy. The benefits of such reforms included deepening democratic checks and balances, preventing one-party dominance or “democratic dictatorship,” and promoting balanced regional development through fiscal decentralization. Yet the process also exposed constitutional gridlock: in December 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled some amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Act unconstitutional, heightening tensions between the legislature, judiciary, and executive, and even prompting accusations of “paralyzing the Constitutional Court.” Additionally, certain public welfare budgets, such as TPASS monthly passes and birth subsidies, were delayed due to budgetary disputes, raising public concern.

On energy and cross-strait policy, Blue and White reached partial consensus. Both parties advocated balancing “environmental sustainability” with energy stability, reopening discussions on nuclear power—including restarting the Fourth Nuclear Plant or extending the life of existing plants—to ensure stable electricity supply and curb rising energy costs. They also supported resuming cross-strait dialogue on the principle of mutual dignity, aiming for regional peace and stability. However, nuclear energy revival remains highly controversial due to unresolved nuclear waste disposal issues, and cross-strait policies have drawn criticism from some sectors, which fear the legislation could lean too closely toward China and potentially compromise national security.

In summary, the Blue-White coalition’s end-of-2025 initiatives demonstrated a strong focus on oversight and resource redistribution, which could effectively check executive power and promote long-term development. At the same time, controversial legislation and delays in budget execution sparked concerns about constitutional stability and public welfare. This situation reflects the ongoing challenge in Taiwan of balancing institutional innovation with safeguarding citizen interests, highlighting the need for more careful policy design and public communication within the Blue-White cooperation model.