In the initial weeks of his second term, Donald Trump, previously a prominent real estate developer, is showcasing his diplomatic approach, which closely resembles a high-stakes business negotiation aimed at securing advantageous outcomes. This methodology is evident in his developing trade disputes with Canada and Mexico, his stance on Russia’s conflict with Ukraine, and his decision on the first nation to visit as he embarks on his new presidential term.
“President Trump engages in diplomacy through a transactional lens, prioritizing economic interests in global affairs,” remarked a former high-ranking official involved with Ukraine and Russia matters, at a recent event in Washington.
For Trump, diplomacy revolves around leverage rather than alliances, focusing on economic gains over moral values, and preferring assertive power over subtle influence. This is not merely a negotiation tactic but a fundamental shift that challenges the global order established post-World War II. Trump’s actions are causing international discussions about the role of U.S. leadership, as his policies become increasingly inward-looking and financially driven, raising questions about traditional American commitments, such as its support for NATO allies meeting certain defense expenditure criteria.
Trump, whose public persona was built as a bold real estate negotiator, applies a ‘winner versus loser’ perspective to his presidency, demanding reciprocity in international relations. An academic specializing in American presidential history noted that Trump’s approach, akin to legendary sports strategies that prioritize winning above all, might not align with contemporary diplomatic needs. Rather, he suggested that diplomacy might require a more balanced approach, reminiscent of soccer where sometimes the best outcome is just to persist and cooperate.
Trump recently announced that his first state visit in his renewed presidency will be to Saudi Arabia, citing a massive financial agreement with the oil-rich nation as a key factor. During his previous term, he made a similar inaugural trip, highlighting the economic motivators behind such diplomatic choices, even if they deviate from the tradition of prioritizing long-standing allies like the United Kingdom.
In the realm of international relations, Trump places significant emphasis on power dynamics, scrutinizing who holds the leverage in proceedings. His interactions with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for example, emphasize Trump’s belief that leverage—which he suggests Russian President Vladimir Putin possesses more of—defines potential negotiation successes. Following a contentious meeting, despite initial criticism, Trump’s administration signaled tentative cooperation through proposed deals, albeit without firm security commitments.
Trump’s approach represents a stark shift from historical U.S. policies towards Russia, seeking a more conciliatory relationship while altering the status quo established since the Cold War. This change indicates a different path from prior administrations that maintained skepticism about Russia, even when seeking diplomatic openings. Trump is distinctly altering this pattern by showing restraint in military aid to Ukraine and by easing previous measures against Russian interests.
A former adviser recounted Trump’s consistent focus on economic balances during interactions with international leaders, highlighting trade imbalances as a recurrent theme. This focus underscores Trump’s belief that American economic superiority is paramount, as demonstrated through his recent tariff announcements targeting Mexican and Canadian imports in the name of addressing wider trade concerns.
Such moves have sparked fears of escalating trade tensions, although Trump has occasionally deferred implementing these tariffs. Assertions from the White House link these tariffs to combating illicit drug trafficking; however, Trump has implied that broader economic negotiations could resolve them as well. Yet, Trump has not shied away from vocal criticism, particularly targeting Canadian agricultural policies and trade practices, suggesting retaliatory tariffs are forthcoming.
The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, responded robustly, denouncing Trump’s trade maneuvers as counterproductive and signaling no intention to yield to such pressures. This scenario illustrates Trump’s readiness to use forceful tactics even at the risk of straining historically amicable bilateral relationships. The conflict highlights the broader implications of Trump’s business-oriented foreign policy, sometimes sparking unusual alliances, as even ideological opposites like Trudeau and traditionally conservative voices unite in criticizing Trump’s strategy.
