Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term, a fact is obvious: US foreign policy seems to be active on almost all fronts. Iran, the Middle East, Ukraine: the administration gives the impression of wanting to take the initiative again, to set the tone and make other people respond. For a long time, Donald Trump was described as a mainly ‘spectacular’ leader, unpredictable, sometimes reduced to his provocations. Yet, as his action repeats and structures itself, many observers see it less as a series of isolated blows than a recognizable style. This is what is often called, for convenience, ‘Trumpian diplomacy.’ To what extent can one speak of a coherent, identifiable diplomacy specific to Trump—and not of a mere succession of impulses? And what immediate gains does it offer, at the cost of what strategic risks for the alliances, stability, and credibility of the United States?

To answer, it is first necessary to isolate the pillars of this diplomacy and then observe its implementation in major crises before measuring their strengths and limits.

I) The pillars of an identifiable diplomacy: America First, transaction, pressure, personalization

The first pillar is the America First logic. Trump conceives the international relationship as a space of competition where national interest must be visible, measurable, and immediate. Alliances are not primarily a ‘community of values’: they resemble arrangements where everyone must prove their contribution. In this context, the central question is not ‘What does international law say? ‘, but ‘who pays? Who wins? Who depends?’. This vision is not entirely new in American history, but Trump makes it more brutal, more frontal, and less dressed in the traditional vocabulary of alliances.

The second pillar is the transaction. Diplomacy is treated as a permanent negotiation: we put on the table levers (sanctions, tariffs, military aid, security guarantees, access to a market), then we ask for compensation. Trump often favors bilateral relations because the face-to-face meeting allows setting the agenda and playing the balance of power. In his style, “everything can be negotiated”: the conditions, the timetable, the concessions, sometimes even the public vocabulary of the crisis. Success is presented as a ‘deal’ achieved through leadership.

The third pillar is pressure. Where classical diplomacy can seek balance and patience, Trumpian diplomacy assumes coercion as the main language: threaten, harden, test, create an increasing cost of refusal. Economic tools (tariffs and sanctions) are becoming instruments of foreign policy as important as diplomatic statements. Pressure also has a psychological dimension: making the opponent understand that the situation can worsen quickly, while leaving a way out if the other gives in on the essential.

Finally, a fourth pillar is personalization. Trump emphasizes the leader rather than the institution. Chief-to-chief relationships, public announcements, images, sound bites are part of the negotiation. Communication is not just a comment: it becomes a tool that serves to destabilize the opponent, reassure or worry allies, and display a controlling posture. This personalization can short-circuit traditional diplomatic routines, sometimes in favor of speed.

These principles, however, remain abstract. To judge whether they really form a diplomacy, it is necessary to see how they translate into concrete crises, where foreign policy becomes action.

II) Implementation in three theaters: a diplomacy of the ‘shock’ to accelerate choices

On Iran, Trumpian logic reads like a negotiation under constraint. The main idea is to make the status quo untenable: increase economic pressure, send signals of firmness, build a balance of power, while suggesting that an agreement is possible if Tehran accepts substantial concessions. What matters is not only the ‘hardness’: it is the staging of a choice imposed on the opponent. Either Iran agrees to restrictions and a de-escalation, or it exposes itself to pressure that may extend. The objective is to push the other side to refereeing, and, if possible, to divide its supporters and reduce its room for maneuver.

In the Middle East, Trumpian diplomacy often works through realignments and demands. Regional partners are invited to clarify their position: security cooperation against political alignment, economic advantages against diplomatic gestures, American guarantees against more visible participation. There again, the approach is transactional: Washington can offer support but in return expects clear choices. This method can give the impression of efficiency, as it speeds up decisions. But it also upsets the balance: some actors may feel pressured, others may try to take advantage of the moment to advance their interests.

On Ukraine, the Trumpian style tends to prioritize the quick result: end the war or obtain a ceasefire, display a ‘negotiated’ solution, present the dynamic as a leadership success. Such an approach can have a political appeal: it responds to the fatigue of long and costly conflicts. But it encounters a structural limit: a conflict where sovereignty, territory, and security guarantees are at stake cannot be settled like a simple commercial contract. Seeking an agreement quickly can cause tensions with the European allies and put difficult pressure on the partners concerned if the terms of a compromise appear unbalanced or too fragile.

One thus understands the overall logic: on several fronts, Trump seeks to impose a tempo, to create a psychological asymmetry, and to transform the crisis into negotiation. But effective diplomacy in the short term can become costly in the long run. It is therefore necessary to measure what this style ‘gains’ immediately and what it permanently weakens.

III) Forces, limits and heritages: tactical effectiveness versus strategic risks

The main strength of Trumpian diplomacy is its potential tactical effectiveness. It breaks inertia, forces actors to react, and can obtain quick concessions thanks to the economic leverage and credibility of an escalation. It sometimes clarifies the balance of power: partners understand what Washington is waiting for, and opponents understand that the cost of refusal may increase. In a world where rivalries are hardening, this ability to impose rhythm can be an advantage.

It can also weaken alliances: if everything becomes commercial, trust deteriorates. Allies may fear being treated as clients, therefore seeking to diversify their support or to become autonomous. Then, pressure can cause an overcall: a constrained opponent may choose to bypass, indirectly provoke, or harden his posture so as not to appear to give in. Finally, personalization can create uncertainty and become more difficult to predict.

The legacy remains: even without written doctrine, the repetition of tools—sanctions, tariffs, conditionality, bilateral communication shock—can produce a consistency of fact. The ‘Trumpian diplomacy’ is then less an ideology than a technique of power: obtaining visible results, through pressure and deals, by assuming the balance of power.

In conclusion, one can indeed speak of a Trumpian diplomacy in the sense of an identifiable style: America First, transaction, coercion, personalization. It can produce quick gains and give an impression of control in a hardened international system. The real question is therefore not only whether Trump is ‘incoherent,’ but whether the contemporary world—more competitive, more conflictual, more impatient—rewards this type of diplomacy more and more, to the point of making it sustainable beyond the character.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)