Why does Trump's foreign policy seem to work despite breaking all the rules?

Donald Trump's foreign policy approach during his presidency (2017-2021) shattered decades of diplomatic convention. While critics predicted his unpredictable tactics would damage America's global standing, supporters pointed to concrete achievements where traditional diplomacy had stalled. The Abraham Accords normalized Middle East relations, NATO allies increased defense spending, and direct summits with North Korea broke longstanding deadlocks. But did Trump's rule-breaking approach actually work, or did he simply benefit from favorable timing and underlying global trends?

The Conventional Wisdom vs. Trump's Approach

Traditional American foreign policy has long been built on multilateralism, alliance-building, and predictable diplomatic engagement. The post-World War II international order relied heavily on institutions like NATO, the United Nations, and trade agreements to maintain global stability^[1]. Career diplomats typically emphasized careful messaging, respect for international law, and gradual relationship-building through established channels.

Trump's approach fundamentally challenged these assumptions. His administration withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership^[2]. He criticized NATO allies for insufficient defense spending, imposed tariffs on both adversaries and allies, and conducted diplomacy through Twitter. The "America First" doctrine prioritized bilateral relationships over multilateral frameworks and emphasized transactional rather than institutional approaches.

This stark contrast raised a critical question: Had decades of foreign policy orthodoxy become ineffective, or would Trump's methods ultimately prove counterproductive despite any short-term gains?

Apparent Successes and Their Analysis

Several developments during Trump's presidency were cited as evidence of his foreign policy effectiveness. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco^[3]. These agreements represented a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, bypassing the traditional Palestinian-Israeli peace process that had dominated regional negotiations for decades.

Trump's engagement with North Korea also broke conventional patterns. His direct meetings with Kim Jong Un in 2018 and 2019 marked the first time a sitting U.S. president had met with a North Korean leader^[4]. While these summits didn't achieve denuclearization, they temporarily reduced tensions and opened unprecedented direct communication channels.

The administration's pressure campaign against NATO allies regarding defense spending appeared to accelerate increased military budgets among several member nations. Though these increases also reflected growing security concerns about Russia following the 2014 annexation of Crimea^[5], Trump's direct criticism may have made meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target more urgent than previous diplomatic entreaties.

Additionally, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA, included updated provisions for digital trade, labor standards, and intellectual property^[6]. The renegotiation fulfilled a key campaign promise and addressed some longstanding trade imbalances.

The Role of Unpredictability in Diplomacy

One argument for Trump's approach centers on the strategic value of unpredictability. Traditional game theory suggests that predictable behavior can be exploited by adversaries, while uncertainty creates leverage^[7]. Trump's willingness to threaten dramatic actions—such as withdrawing from NATO or imposing severe tariffs—may have compelled other nations to make concessions they wouldn't have considered under more predictable leadership.

This "madman theory," previously associated with Richard Nixon's foreign policy, suggests that appearing irrational can be a negotiating advantage^[8]. If adversaries can't predict American responses, they may be more cautious about testing U.S. resolve or may offer concessions to avoid potentially severe consequences.

However, critics argue that while unpredictability may yield short-term tactical advantages, it undermines the trust and stability necessary for long-term strategic relationships. The effectiveness of this approach may depend heavily on specific contexts and relationships.

Structural Factors Beyond Presidential Style

Many apparent successes attributed to Trump's foreign policy may have resulted from broader structural factors rather than his specific methods. The Abraham Accords built upon years of behind-the-scenes cooperation between Israel and Gulf states driven by shared concerns about Iran's regional influence^[9]. This convergence of interests around containing Iranian power created conditions that may have made normalization agreements achievable regardless of diplomatic approach.

Similarly, NATO allies' increased defense spending may have reflected growing security concerns about Russia following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, rather than solely responding to Trump's pressure^[10]. European nations had already begun reassessing their defense capabilities before Trump's presidency, though his direct pressure may have accelerated these trends.

The relative strength of the U.S. economy and military during Trump's presidency also provided leverage that might have made various negotiating positions effective regardless of diplomatic style. America's continued status as the world's largest economy and most powerful military gave the administration significant bargaining power.

Measuring Success vs. Long-term Consequences

Evaluating Trump's foreign policy effectiveness requires distinguishing between immediate tactical gains and longer-term strategic outcomes. While some agreements and behavioral changes occurred during his presidency, their durability and broader implications remain debatable.

The North Korea engagement, despite initial optimism, didn't achieve denuclearization. While North Korea reduced the pace of nuclear testing during diplomatic engagement, it didn't abandon its nuclear program, and tensions resumed after the failed Hanoi summit in 2019^[11]. The direct engagement may have temporarily reduced conflict risk but didn't resolve the underlying strategic challenge.

Trump's trade policies produced mixed results. While some trade imbalances were reduced and new agreements reached, the broader trade war with China imposed costs on American consumers and businesses^[12]. The long-term effectiveness of these policies in achieving strategic objectives remains uncertain.

The withdrawal from international agreements may have provided short-term negotiating leverage but potentially weakened America's ability to shape global governance over time. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, and other transnational challenges require sustained multilateral cooperation that may be more difficult after periods of unilateral withdrawal.

The Importance of Context and Timing

Trump's unconventional approach may have been particularly suited to the specific international context of his presidency. Global frustration with existing institutions, rising nationalism worldwide, and the particular configuration of international challenges may have created conditions where disruptive approaches could achieve results.

Additionally, Trump's background as a businessman and media personality may have provided negotiating skills and public relations advantages that career politicians and diplomats might lack. His willingness to walk away from negotiations and comfort with public confrontation may have been assets in certain international contexts.

However, this raises questions about replicability and sustainability. Methods that work in specific circumstances with particular personalities may not transfer to other leaders or situations. The international system's adaptation to Trump's style over time also potentially reduced the effectiveness of unpredictability as other nations developed strategies to manage uncertainty.