Diplomatic tactics through pawn-shops: The second term of Trump and the deterioration of trust-based international partnerships
In the final years of the Trump administration, a new diplomatic style emerged, marked by a focus on transactions rather than alliances. This transformation, while producing some short-term gains, has raised concerns about long-term implications for US foreign policy.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy referred to a potential deal as a "pragmatic investment" for the U.S., but the agreement was scaled back after pushback. This incident was a reminder to America's allies that strategic ties are now bargaining chips.
Donald Trump's approach to global diplomacy has weakened traditional trust-based US alliances, turning them into deals characterized by bargaining and quid pro quo. This shift has made allies treat partnerships more like commercial transactions rather than enduring strategic commitments, thereby eroding mutual trust and stability in longstanding alliances.
Trump's diplomatic style is described as impulsive, short-term, and volatile. Every crisis or engagement became a deal with a price tag, and every ally was seen as a customer. While this approach has produced some tangible short-term results, it risks long-term costs by encouraging countries to hedge their bets against a potentially unreliable and fleeting US foreign policy posture.
This transactional perspective fosters unpredictability that can be both an advantage and a liability. Adversaries may be uncertain about US intentions, but traditional allies may feel alienated or insecure. There is also a tendency to favor publicity and media-driven narratives over deep, stable security improvements, sometimes overstating the impact of actions to sell short-term wins.
In regions like the Middle East, Trump's lack of dogmatic policy commitments and willingness to engage in flexible, transactional deals has slightly shifted diplomatic dynamics. For instance, it created openings for negotiations with Iran through its Gulf partners. However, this approach remains mercurial and may not yield strategic coherence.
In summary, Trump's transactional diplomacy has resulted in the erosion of trust and long-term confidence in US alliances, short-term tangible gains but increased uncertainty and hedging by partners, potential diplomatic flexibility and unpredictability as double-edged swords, and a shift from enduring strategic partnerships to more segmented, transactional relationships.
These dynamics reflect a fundamental transformation in US diplomatic style under Trump, with implications that allies must carefully navigate given the risk of diminished strategic cohesion. Middle powers such as Turkey, India, and Brazil are focusing on charting more independent courses. Indo-Pacific partners are hedging with China. Allies are recalculating their relationships, with NATO members discussing European defense autonomy.
Every instrument, including tariffs, aid packages, and arms sales, is wielded as a bargaining chip. Trump threatened Iran with "bombing like they've never seen" unless they returned to nuclear talks. Allies were affected, with Canada facing 35% tariffs after talks stalled, and pharmaceuticals threatened with 200% duties. Senator Ted Cruz made unverified claims that Iran had plotted to assassinate the U.S. president.
In February 2025, Trump publicly linked U.S. aid to Ukraine to access to its rare-earth minerals. In August 2025, Russia faced an ultimatum threatening secondary sanctions on buyers of its oil exports unless Moscow and Kyiv reach an agreement on ending the war. In June 2025, a 12-day war erupted between Israel and Iran. U.S. intelligence sharing and arms transfers to Israel proceeded with no public oversight, and Trump praised Israel's actions in the war, deploying Patriots to intercept Iranian rockets.
Trump's second term has a focus on diplomacy based on transactions rather than alliances. In July 2020, the EU agreed to a 15% ceiling on most imports and pledged massive purchases of U.S. energy and military goods. However, this transactional approach left no room for quiet diplomacy due to Trump's maximalism.
As the world moves forward, the implications of Trump's transactional diplomacy continue to shape global relations, necessitating careful navigation and recalibration by allies and partners alike.
In the context of Trump's administration, the diplomatic approach shifted towards transactions, raising concerns about the future stability of US alliances in Europe and beyond. This transition saw strategic ties being treated as bargaining chips, as witnessed in the Ukraine deal referred to as a "pragmatic investment."
Such a transactional perspective has fostered unpredictability, with allies navigating the risk of diminished strategic cohesion. Countries like Turkey, India, and Brazil are charting more independent courses, while Indo-Pacific partners are hedging with China. NATO members are discussing European defense autonomy.
Every instrument, ranging from tariffs, aid packages, to arms sales, has been utilized as a bargaining chip. For instance, Trump threatened Iran with potential military action unless they returned to nuclear talks, while Canada faced 35% tariffs due to trade talks stall.
In the long run, this transactional diplomacy has the potential to erode trust and long-term confidence in US alliances, while increasing unpredictability across global political landscapes – a challenge that requires careful navigation by allies and partners alike.
