Trump's business tactics in diplomacy: A risky shift

[WORLD] President Donald Trump has upended global expectations with a negotiation style more typical of corporate deal-making than international diplomacy. What may seem like an effective, hardline approach on the surface reveals deeper flaws upon closer inspection—chiefly, a lack of adaptability and disregard for sustaining long-term alliances.

Washington would be wise to consider the potential consequences of transplanting business negotiation strategies onto the global stage—particularly the danger of undermining America’s credibility and leadership in world affairs.

At the heart of most negotiations—whether in corporate boardrooms or geopolitical arenas—are two prevailing models: distributive and collaborative. The former is a zero-sum game, aimed at securing maximum value for one side, often at the other’s expense. The latter seeks mutual gains, focusing on shared interests and lasting relationships.

While both approaches are commonplace in business, diplomacy, especially during peacetime, tends to favor collaboration. It’s rooted in trust, stability, and the recognition that today’s adversary might become tomorrow’s partner.

Trump, however, has thrown this conventional playbook aside. His preferred style is marked by dominance and confrontation, favoring the distributive model—pursuing short-term wins while placing American economic interests above broader international stability.

This preference is most evident in his approach to trade. Through tariffs and high-pressure tactics, Trump aims to compel foreign governments into agreements skewed heavily toward U.S. advantages. While such strategies might deliver immediate economic dividends, they erode the spirit of cooperation that has long been the foundation of global diplomacy.

Short-term gains, however, come at a cost. Over time, these tactics risk damaging America’s credibility and fostering resentment among allies and rivals alike. In the long run, such moves could fracture the unity of democratic nations and diminish U.S. influence on the world stage.

When Business Tactics Meet Foreign Policy

Trump’s strategy has become unmistakable: open with extreme demands to shock the opposing side into accepting less favorable terms. This is a common tactic in deal-making—anchoring negotiations high to settle at a still-beneficial midpoint. But in diplomacy, this approach often alienates rather than persuades.

In keeping with his business instincts, Trump also favors bilateral negotiations over multilateral engagement. One-on-one meetings allow him more leverage to pressure counterparts—something less effective in broader forums that demand consensus and balance.

The trade war launched under his administration is a clear example. Tariffs led to retaliatory measures and a sharp decline in the stock market. More than just a political maneuver, these tariffs dealt tangible blows to key sectors of the U.S. economy. American manufacturers and farmers, in particular, faced steep losses, with exports dropping and financial pressure mounting.

Major corporations—including those led by prominent figures like Elon Musk—suffered billions in losses. While Trump described the economic fallout as part of his “plan” and urged Americans to trust his instincts, many analysts argue the administration was steering without a clear roadmap, jeopardizing both the economy and global standing.

Central to Trump’s approach is a win-at-all-costs mentality. While that may work in high-stakes corporate environments, diplomacy prioritizes enduring relationships over singular victories. Success in foreign policy is built on dialogue, compromise, and mutual respect. An aggressive posture may isolate allies and push global partners to seek less confrontational alternatives.

Trump has also leaned heavily on media and social media to exert pressure, often criticizing foreign leaders publicly. This performative diplomacy runs counter to the discreet, behind-the-scenes negotiations that are vital to meaningful progress. The result is often more spectacle than substance.

This spectacle-driven approach has contributed to inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy. Allies and adversaries alike struggle to anticipate Washington’s next move, creating an unstable environment that hampers international cooperation. Without a clear strategic direction, foreign governments are left reacting to unpredictability rather than engaging in long-term planning.

A Diminishing Global Role

If continued, Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy could have profound long-term consequences. Effective foreign policy depends on mutual trust and a willingness to compromise—not on threats and unilateral demands.

By putting immediate economic gains above global cooperation, the U.S. risks eroding the foundation of its international influence. Other nations may look elsewhere for leadership, deepening ties with each other to counterbalance American volatility. This could weaken the U.S. position on critical global issues ranging from climate change to security and trade.

The uneasy relationship with the European Union is a case in point. By attempting to impose terms rather than negotiate them, Washington risks alienating one of its most important trading and strategic partners. This could open the door for assertive rivals like China to expand their influence.

China, in particular, has positioned itself as a more dependable partner by fostering multilateral ties and emphasizing cooperation. As Beijing strengthens its global standing, the contrast with an increasingly isolated United States becomes more pronounced.

The Consequences of Abandoning Tradition

Perhaps the most significant challenge facing Trump is that the world has adjusted. What was once seen as a novel, disruptive approach is now anticipated. Countries like China and members of the EU have begun responding with retaliatory strategies of their own—adopting some of the same hardball tactics that Trump introduced.

When senior U.S. officials—such as the Treasury Secretary and Speaker of the House—deflect concerns about policy coherence by citing trust in the president’s instincts, it reveals not strategic confidence, but institutional fragility. Negotiation gives way to gamble.

If the United States hopes to retain its global leadership, it must reaffirm its commitment to traditional diplomacy: patience, compromise, and a focus on long-term interests. Otherwise, America risks being perceived not as a trusted leader, but as an unpredictable actor—one that others may choose to bypass in favor of more stable, cooperative partners.