Arguably US and Europe absolutely intend to get
some onshore fab capacity as a backup, and the choice for TSMC is to either do that (perhaps demanding some subsidies as enticement) or refuse with the expectation that this will inevitably cause attempts to decouple from TSMC even if it's not economically viable, purely for strategic reasons.
IMHO there are some similar trends with EU agricultural policy, where arguably one of the reasons (not much discussed to general public, but obvious if you look at what's being done) for sustaining farming subsidies in sectors where EU would be uncompetitive (due to climatic reasons and labor costs) is the strategic goal to ensure that EU does not become reliant on imported food even if it can be farmed cheaper elsewhere, so that in case of major geopolitical disturbances in coming decades (e.g. caused by climate change) there's local farmers, farmland, skills and infrastructure for that. The costs seem huge, but in proportion to the whole economy they're affordable - the same would apply for on-shore chip fab capacity that's needed for strategic self-sufficiency of key resources.
On the other hand, I fully agree with the TSMC statement that it would be economically unrealistic for EU to expand semiconductor fab capacity to fully satisfy their own needs - it's feasible to expand fab capacity so that you have some onshore supply of modern chips, but it's impractical (and IMHO not within plans of any politician) to ensure that there would be enough fab capacity to supply all the consumer consumption, the expectation is that most of the volume would still be supplied from Taiwan and elsewhere.