Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, his shock tactics and explosive actions have made waves on the world stage. There is no shortage of adjectives characterising Donald Trump’s international modus operandi: narcissistic, transgressive, unpredictable and erratic, boastful, clumsy, even vulgar, dishonest, brutal… His tweets and curt sentence-based internal and external communications present leaders and diplomatic corps worldwide with a redoubtable challenge when for example, he shamelessly goes public about conversations that should have otherwise remained private and confidential (as was recently the case regarding a text exchange with Emmanuel Macron). Such disturbing behaviour would’ve caused a breadth of diplomatic havoc if it hadn’t come from the leader of the world’s biggest superpower, leaving partners of the United States with no choice but to adapt accordingly and keep up appearances.
Diplomacy in relations between foreign leaders and Trump, is still necessary, in the same way that international law retains its intrinsic value in relations between nations. Despite multiple breaches, including those by the current US President himself, diplomacy remains an art form in terms of communication, and compromise between parties that do not share the same perspective on the world, especially when they are in disagreement over a particular issue.
‘The Art of the Deal’ – A disruptive brand of foreign policy
The book The Art of the Deal (co-authored by Donald Trump and journalist Tony Schwartz) dates back to 1987, long before the businessman’s foray into politics. In the book, the Real Estate mogul describes his disruptive negotiating method, which consists of thinking big, asking for a lot, and using the media to his advantage. It was at that time that he started to publicly demand that the US lay down tariffs (global duty collections on imported goods), amid a context characterised by Japan’s economic boom and the widening of America’s trade deficit.
Donald Trump was unable to fully implement his policy during his first term because he was ill-prepared and held back by his administration, for example, in his attempts to build closer ties with North Korea. His second term kicked off with a more thought-out and resolute policy: aggressive trade measures (the “salvo of tariffs” announced on “Liberation Day” on April 2); by threats to the sovereignty of Canada and Greenland; by demanding that Latin American states comply with its orders on immigration control, the fight against drug trafficking, and relations with China; by the withdrawal of the United States from certain multilateral organizations (already begun in 2017-2020); and by the heavy-handed negotiation of several peace agreements (notably in Gaza).
This attitude, while striking in comparison to previous administrations, is not entirely unprecedented in American tradition when it comes to relations with the rest of the world. Pressure on allies, unilateral sanctions, the extraterritoriality of American law, the unilateral use of force, and the rejection of certain multilateral norms (the US has never ratified the Montego Bay Convention on the law of the sea or the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, and withdrew from UNESCO between 1984 and 2003) are not new practices. But Donald Trump adds his own brand of brutality, selfishness, and systematicity, in the name of ideology: America First.
Practical limitations
The US president has said that he sets no limits other than those of his “own morality”. However, there are two practical limits that are evident in his actions, which may reassure his partners somewhat.
Firstly, he does not like military adventures. On the one hand, this is due to his temperament (he did not do military service and believes more in business than in war). On the other hand, it is because his electoral base rejects military engagements. He intends to guarantee “peace through strength,” but the goal is indeed peace. He has demonstrated a clear preference for targeted strikes and operations (in Syria in 2017 and 2018, in Iran and Nigeria in 2025, and in Venezuela in 2026) instead of prolonged engagements.
He thus confirms that the page of the ‘war on terror’, which is estimated to have cost $8 trillion (€6.75 trillion) in the US between 2001 and 2021, has come to an end, without abandoning the military strikes that have become, since Barack Obama’s two terms in office, the preferred means of action against terrorist groups. The operation in Venezuela is a good illustration of a policy that is economical in its objectives (in this case, Maduro’s ousting and the fight against drug trafficking and Chinese influence, rather than regime change) and in its means.
Secondly, Donald Trump has demonstrated his pragmatism on more than one occasion, not hesitating to back down when he has gone too far. This is a corollary of his disruptive approach. The reactions of American public opinion and the stock market, as well as the limits imposed by his partners, ultimately influence an administration in which the president, surrounded by loyalists, does not ignore calls for caution. The tariffs enacted on ‘Liberation Day’ were immediately followed by a pause, largely due to the reaction of the markets, to the point that the Wall Street Journal hailed it a ‘Mitterrand moment’, drawing a parallel between Trump’s reversal on this occasion and the famous turn toward austerity initiated by the French socialist president in 1983.
In the Russia/Ukraine dossier, the American president listened to the Europeans and shifted his position to one less favourable to Moscow, to the point of accepting a form of American commitment in future security guarantees for Ukraine. On Greenland, he backed down in Davos by renouncing the military option. On Iran, he distanced himself from certain attempts to overthrow the regime in order to focus on the goal of nuclear negotiations.
He has been criticised for these U-turns (the acronym TACO, “Trump Always Chickens Out” has been very successful on social media), and it is not certain that they will pay off with the American electorate at the time of the midterms. But they show that there is a place for diplomacy in the art of managing Trump.
The art of managing Trump
World leaders are unsettled and their nerves are being tested. Many have been on the receiving end of his mockery and whims, particularly Western leaders or those considered hostile, but not directly “strong” leaders such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Some have not been afraid to make fools of themselves, such as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who reportedly called him ‘Daddy’.
Nevertheless, the US administration’s partners have managed over time to establish a working relationship with it and achieve results. Emmanuel Macron was the first to organise a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, at the Notre-Dame reopening ceremony in December 2024. The European Commission concluded a trade deal with the United States in July 2025, which was criticised in France in particular, but welcomed by many states that wanted, above all, to preserve economic and trade ties with Washington. The NATO summit in The Hague in June 2025 passed without a hitch, avoiding American disengagement.
As relations with Canada became strained due to mounting disputes (tariffs, land claims, relations with China), [Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum(https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-01-30/trump-mexico-sheinbaum) demonstrated her skill in her relations with the American president]. Emmanuel Macron, until the recent confrontation over Greenland, had also managed to charm the White House host, who acknowledged this in Davos (“I really like Emmanuel Macron”) while sending him several jibes.
This reveals a certain method in the art of dealing with the US head of state:
The need to keep a cool head. This should not become coldness, at least on the part of partners and allies. It is a matter of keeping calm, not getting drawn into verbal escalation, and countering whims with the authority of seriousness.
Dialogue and cooperation: talking, taking American demands seriously, trying to understand them, attempting to respond to them, accepting and even seeking dialogue, looking for and accepting compromises.
Firmness: setting and stating limits, reiterating positions of principle, acting or reacting with restraint, and strengthening one’s position by seeking allies.
The European approach
The way Europeans have dealt with Donald Trump so far has been quite exemplary: accepting a tariff compromise that avoids a trade war (the Turnberry agreement); drawing red lines on digital regulation; diplomacy backed by tools of power in Ukraine (increased aid and the establishment of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to provide security guarantees to Kiev); firmness in the Greenland affair (the statement of 6 January and the dispatch of a military mission); postponement of the ratification of the trade agreement. But the Europeans have always avoided entering into a futile confrontation, seeking, above all, to safeguard the future and preserve the transatlantic link, despite numerous calls (especially in France) for an uncompromising stance.
A different stance for the East
Relations with Russia and China appear more formal, colder and more egalitarian, as Trump treats them with greater deference. Xi Jinping appeared to use self-control to dominate his counterpart during their meeting in Korea, even though some saw it as an attempt by Donald Trump to gain the upper hand. Chinese culture, which places great importance on appearances and not losing face, is undoubtedly difficult to reconcile with the American president’s eccentricities. A similar situation occurred during the meeting with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage.
Behind the negotiations and diplomatic twists and turns, what is at stake involving global power relations and the future of the Western camp and its values is obviously far deeper. But whatever developments lie ahead, diplomacy will remain more necessary than ever for ensuring global stability. While diplomacy must still bend and shape itself around power relations, on the bright side, it is still producing results.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Maxime Lefebvre ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
