Why do other countries seem to respect Trump more than they like him?

The relationship between personal likability and political respect represents one of the most intriguing dynamics in international diplomacy. Throughout Donald Trump's presidency, a curious pattern emerged: while public opinion polls consistently showed low approval ratings for Trump among foreign populations, many world leaders demonstrated what appeared to be grudging respect for his negotiating style and willingness to challenge established norms. This disconnect raises fundamental questions about whether fear, unpredictability, or transactional effectiveness can substitute for traditional diplomatic goodwill.

The Disconnect Between Public Opinion and Diplomatic Reality

International polling data revealed consistently low approval ratings for Trump among foreign publics during his presidency. Pew Research Center surveys showed that confidence in Trump to "do the right thing in world affairs" was significantly lower than his predecessors across most allied nations^[1]. In 2020, median confidence in Trump across 32 countries was just 16%, compared to 64% for Barack Obama in 2016^[2].

Yet this public disapproval didn't translate to dismissive treatment from foreign governments. Several factors explain this disconnect. First, diplomatic relationships operate on different principles than public opinion—leaders must engage with counterparts regardless of personal feelings, focusing on national interests rather than individual preferences. Second, Trump's unpredictability, while concerning to many, commanded attention from foreign governments who couldn't afford to miscalculate their responses.

In international relations, "respect" often differs from personal admiration. It can mean recognition of power, acknowledgment of capability, or simply the practical necessity of serious engagement. Many foreign leaders may have found Trump's style distasteful while recognizing his influence and the need to work with him effectively.

The "Madman Theory" in Action

Trump's approach often embodied what political scientists call the "madman theory"—the strategic use of unpredictability to gain negotiating advantages. This concept, famously employed by Richard Nixon, suggests that if adversaries believe a leader might act irrationally, they'll make greater concessions to avoid unpredictable consequences^[3].

Several examples illustrate this dynamic. Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO may have accelerated defense spending commitments from European allies, though these increases had begun following the 2014 Wales Summit after Russia's annexation of Crimea^[4]. His unpredictable stance toward North Korea—alternating between threats of "fire and fury" and unprecedented diplomatic engagement—resulted in the first face-to-face meetings between a U.S. president and North Korean leader, even if long-term outcomes remained limited.

Chinese officials, despite public criticism of Trump's trade policies, took his threats seriously enough to engage in extensive negotiations and make significant concessions during trade talks. The uncertainty about Trump's next move forced many countries to engage more seriously with American positions, even when they disagreed with his methods.

The Clarity of Transactional Diplomacy

Trump's explicitly transactional approach to international relations, while criticized for undermining traditional alliances, provided a form of clarity that some foreign leaders found easier to navigate than traditional diplomatic ambiguity. His "America First" rhetoric made American priorities explicit and allowed other nations to adjust their strategies accordingly.

This transactional style resonated particularly with leaders who governed with similarly pragmatic approaches. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and several Gulf states found Trump's direct, deal-focused approach preferable to what they perceived as the more idealistic but less predictable policies of previous administrations^[5].

The Abraham Accords, facilitating normalization between Israel and four Arab nations, exemplified this transactional success. While critics questioned the long-term sustainability of agreements based primarily on immediate strategic benefits rather than deeper diplomatic foundations, the concrete results demonstrated the effectiveness of Trump's approach in certain contexts^[6].

Economic Power Commands Attention

Respect in international relations often correlates directly with economic and military power, regardless of personal popularity. America's continued economic dominance during Trump's presidency meant that foreign governments had little choice but to engage seriously with his administration, even when they disapproved of his policies or rhetoric.

Trump's willingness to use economic leverage—through tariffs, sanctions, and trade negotiations—demonstrated American power in ways that commanded attention, if not admiration. His renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA, despite initial resistance from Canada and Mexico, showed that economic pressure could achieve policy objectives even without traditional diplomatic consensus-building^[7].

European leaders, while publicly critical of Trump's approach, ultimately accommodated many of his demands regarding trade relationships and defense spending. This accommodation reflected not personal respect but recognition of American economic and military power that transcended individual leadership styles.

Authoritarian Leaders and Personal Chemistry

A notable pattern during Trump's presidency was his apparently positive relationships with several authoritarian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un. These relationships, while controversial domestically, illustrated how personal diplomatic dynamics can diverge from broader public opinion.

Authoritarian leaders may have appreciated Trump's direct, personal approach to diplomacy and his apparent skepticism toward traditional multilateral institutions that often criticize authoritarian practices. Trump's praise for "strong" leadership and his transactional approach aligned more closely with how these leaders operated domestically and internationally^[8].

However, apparent personal rapport didn't necessarily translate into substantive policy concessions. Despite Trump's positive rhetoric toward Putin, U.S.-Russia relations remained strained, and sanctions against Russia continued. Similarly, despite summit meetings with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's nuclear program continued to advance.

The Media Filter Effect

The distinction between respect and likability may also reflect differences in how international media covered Trump compared to how foreign governments actually experienced working with his administration. Media coverage often focused on controversial statements or unconventional behavior, while diplomatic interactions occurred through more traditional channels where substantive policy discussions took precedence over public rhetoric.

This gap between public perception and diplomatic reality may have contributed to the apparent disconnect between low popularity ratings and continued serious engagement from foreign governments.

What This Means for Future Diplomacy

The question of whether respect based on unpredictability and transactional power can substitute for traditional diplomatic relationships remains open. Some analysts argue that Trump's approach achieved short-term tactical successes at the cost of long-term strategic relationships. Others contend that his willingness to challenge established norms forced necessary recalibrations in international relationships that had become too comfortable or one-sided.

The sustainability of relationships built primarily on power dynamics rather than shared values or mutual trust faces significant challenges. As global power balances shift and new leaders emerge, the foundation for continued cooperation may prove less stable than relationships built on deeper diplomatic and cultural connections.

However, Trump's approach also demonstrated that traditional diplomatic niceties aren't always necessary for achieving specific policy objectives. This lesson may influence how future leaders approach international negotiations, potentially incorporating elements of unpredictability and transactional clarity while maintaining broader diplomatic relationships.