LONDON—In crafting strategies to navigate diplomatic interactions with U.S. President Donald Trump during his second term, world leaders might consider the following approach: lavish praise liberally, avoid getting entangled in every policy distraction he introduces, and when confronted with threats, remain patient to discern his ultimate objectives before delivering them in some form.
As each meeting in the Oval Office and summit unfolds, leaders from across the globe continue to refine their tactics in establishing a functional relationship with the self-assured leader of the United States. This nation boasts the world’s largest economy and wields the most formidable military power. Evidence of these tactics was on display during recent NATO meetings where Trump was showered with admiration, meetings were shortened, and potentially contentious topics were strategically removed from the agenda.
Trump’s dominant presence on the international geopolitical stage means foreign leaders have had the opportunity to learn from past experiences, dating back to his first term—when he controversially considered withdrawing the U.S. from the alliance. Key takeaways from these interactions include Trump’s disregard for traditional diplomatic protocols. His philosophy of “America first” and tendency to declare achievements as unprecedentedly great presents a unique challenge. He often relies on instinctual decisions, and the world quickly adapts to his changing priorities.
Leaders have noted a pattern in the rapid shifts in Trump’s proclamations and intentions, which can lead to a dizzying movement between priorities. For example, Trump, who prides himself on being “flexible” with negotiations, has previously issued grandiose tariff threats against countries such as Canada, Mexico, and China, only to retract during negotiations. Despite taking credit for achieving a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Trump has yet to fulfill promises to resolve ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
This week, Trump’s announcement of potential tariffs against Spain was described as puzzling by Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever, during a Brussels summit. If these tariffs do not come to fruition, De Wever acknowledged it wouldn’t be an unprecedented turn of events—reflecting on the unpredictability inherent in Trump’s decision-making.
Two summits this month—a G7 meeting in Canada and a NATO gathering in the Netherlands—illustrated varying strategies in engaging with Trump, just months into his second term. In Alberta, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney extended flattery to Trump at a press conference, calling the G7 ineffective without U.S. leadership. However, as Trump’s rhetoric turned partisan, Carney tactfully ended the public meeting, emphasizing the need to start discussions.
The NATO summit witnessed a more tailored format geared explicitly toward Trump, with discussions focused solely on defense spending among member nations to alleviate the financial burden on America. Notably omitted from talks was the topic of Russia’s continued conflict with Ukraine, although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy engaged Trump in dialogue, using a transactional diplomatic style honed by his interactions with the U.S. leader.
This strategic curation of discussions aimed to prevent any potential disruption of the summit by Trump, an effort bolstered by personalized gestures such as an invitation to stay and dine with the royal family in The Hague. NATO members were prepared to affirm their commitment to increased defense spending targets, seen as a crucial measure to maintain alliance unity.
Secretary-General Mark Rutte, a known adept in Trump diplomacy, privately reassured the president of the anticipated success of the summit, which Trump publicly shared on social media. Rutte later compared Trump’s intervention in the Iran-Israel situation to a parental figure mitigating a schoolyard dispute, emphasizing the affectionate dynamic between the two leaders.
However, not everyone welcomed these diplomatic strategies. Lithuania’s former foreign minister criticized what he saw as overly submissive gestures towards Trump, questioning their appropriateness in the context of European and Eastern geopolitical dynamics.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other global leaders have employed similar tactics of praise to engage with Trump, whether through public accolades or personal gestures like the introduction of a settlement named after him in 2018. At the June summit, leaders navigated negotiations to align with Trump’s preference for increasing defense funding to 5% of GDP by counting military aid to Ukraine toward this target, albeit leaving significant topics such as potential U.S. troop reductions unresolved.
With some referring to NATO as the “North Atlantic Trump Organization” on social media, the summit represented a concerted effort to manage Trump’s unpredictable tendencies. According to Fiona Hill, a former senior White House national security adviser, the event centered on channeling Trump’s influence constructively and preventing disruptions.
Ultimately, the summit concluded with a sense of accomplishment not only for avoiding potential diplomatic incidents but also for reinforcing NATO’s stability. Trump’s participation without incident was noteworthy, and he expressed satisfaction with the outcome, even commenting favorably about his stay at the royal palace.