Because Donald Trump approaches negotiation as a win-lose contest, rather than as an opportunity to maximize value, he is already unraveling the relationships that have long sustained American power and made it the envy of the world. As a result, US interests could be severely harmed, both now and for years to come.
STANFORD – The best negotiators are never the loudest people in the room. They are the ones who can discern interests, create trust, and build lasting relationships.
US President Donald Trump isn’t one of them, which is why his approach – featuring extreme demands, personal attacks, and a refusal to compromise – has repeatedly backfired. What might well work in the dog-eat-dog world of New York real estate does not translate to the global stage. Without a major pivot, this cycle will only repeat itself, jeopardizing America’s interests, both now and for years to come.
Consider Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Describing it as “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” he began his first term with a vow either to overhaul or abandon it. He did neither. After months of threats and ultimatums that alienated allies, he settled for modest revisions and a name change. The resulting United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) left most of NAFTA’s core framework intact.
Barely two months into his second term, Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, leading to retaliation and a faltering stock market. Nonetheless, he is doubling down, with plans to impose another 25% tariff on automobiles and auto parts – a policy that is projected to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers alike. Once again, the “art of the deal” is yielding losses for everyone, because Trump approaches negotiation as a zero-sum battle, rather than as a chance to add value.
Consider a classic example: Two sisters argue over the last orange in the fridge and ultimately agree to split it in half. One uses the peel for baking and throws away the pulp; the other eats the pulp and discards the peel. Economists call this a Pareto-inefficient agreement. Had the sisters appreciated their underlying interests, each could have walked away with exactly what she wanted, and nothing would have been wasted – a far better outcome than simply dividing the orange.
Had Trump applied this principle to NAFTA, he could have unlocked much more value for America, such as by securing better terms for US businesses in digital trade, finance, and technology exports, while allowing Canada and Mexico to protect key industries that were important to them. The opportunity to expand the pie was there; but Trump’s combative approach squandered it.
I have taught hundreds of students – from undergraduates to MBAs to senior executives – how to negotiate more effectively. While many start out viewing negotiation as a zero-sum game, they quickly learn that competing for the biggest slice of the pie is only one part of the process. Far better outcomes come from expanding the pie, by pursuing mutual gains.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Mutual-gains negotiation, rigorously validated in both experimental and real-world settings, rests on two core truths. First, most negotiations involve multiple issues and people with different priorities. Second, building relationships is at least as important as closing a deal. Trust and respect are at least as important as material goods and money. As the age-old Arabic proverb reminds us, “honor before bread.”
The best negotiators know that creative trade-offs abound in real-world negotiations, and missed opportunities are often costly to both parties. They also know that most negotiations are not one-time deals, and that better outcomes are to be had by patiently building rapport, negotiating ethically, and exploring the other side’s interests.
But Trump sees cooperation as weakness. In his view, any gesture of goodwill is a concession, and every negotiation is an antagonistic contest over short-term gains. This mindset is fundamentally mismatched with the demands of modern diplomacy. It jeopardizes not only America’s long-term material interests (by redirecting trade flows and undercutting net job creation) but also the intangibles (trust, stability, and strategic influence) that underpin America’s global standing.
Negotiators with a win-lose mindset often assume that unpredictability gives them an edge; in fact, it just creates confusion, alienates partners, and risks destructive escalation. Hence, Trump’s erratic tariff policies (presumably intended to extract short-term concessions) have triggered counter-tariffs, raised fears of a long-term recession, and undermined America’s credibility.
America’s economic ties with its European allies – relations that support millions of US jobs – have also been fractured by Trump’s extreme threats. He consistently fails to anticipate how others will respond, namely, with their own tariffs, economic boycotts, and other punishments. Decades of research have shown that people naturally reciprocate aggressive behavior – a phenomenon known as psychological reactance – thus creating a spiral where threats increase, rendering mutual gains unattainable. In an effectivenegotiation, threats should be used only strategically and sparingly, with the goal of returning quickly to an interest-based dialogue.
Europe has plenty to offer America. NATO enables crucial intelligence sharing that helps both the US and Europe detect and deter terrorism, cyberattacks, and other threats. Transatlantic collaboration has been essential for building coordinated responses to crises that no country can manage alone.
Yet rather than maximizing the benefits of cooperation, Trump has undermined NATO, disparaged allies, and yielded to Russian interests without getting anything in return. He has even floated the idea of annexing Canada and territory from other allies, like Denmark. Such moves inevitably sow chaos, weaken alliances, and embolden adversaries. If America’s allies seek new security arrangements with rival powers, that could lead to even more instability.
The US is a technological superpower. Its global partnerships and unmatched scientific infrastructure have driven extraordinary innovation, from medicine to advanced computing, making it the envy of the world. Without these assets, rivals like China may surpass the US in critical technologies – from AI and quantum computing to drones.
America needs a new playbook based on trust, mutual gain, and long-term strategy. And it needs a bipartisan Council of Negotiation Advisers to help the president forge deals accordingly.
Trump’s win-lose approach to dealmaking has already begun to unravel America’s carefully cultivated international relationships. But US history has shown that strong alliances, not reckless threats, secure American power. That is not weakness. It is how truly strong countries lead.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
China’s prolonged reliance on fiscal stimulus has distorted economic incentives, fueling a housing glut, a collapse in prices, and spiraling public debt. With further stimulus off the table, the only sustainable path is for the central government to relinquish more economic power to local governments and the private sector.
argues that the country’s problems can be traced back to its response to the 2008 financial crisis.
World order is a matter of degree: it varies over time, depending on technological, political, social, and ideological factors that can affect the global distribution of power and influence norms. It can be radically altered both by broader historical trends and by a single major power's blunders.
examines the role of evolving power dynamics and norms in bringing about stable arrangements among states.
STANFORD – The best negotiators are never the loudest people in the room. They are the ones who can discern interests, create trust, and build lasting relationships.
US President Donald Trump isn’t one of them, which is why his approach – featuring extreme demands, personal attacks, and a refusal to compromise – has repeatedly backfired. What might well work in the dog-eat-dog world of New York real estate does not translate to the global stage. Without a major pivot, this cycle will only repeat itself, jeopardizing America’s interests, both now and for years to come.
Consider Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Describing it as “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” he began his first term with a vow either to overhaul or abandon it. He did neither. After months of threats and ultimatums that alienated allies, he settled for modest revisions and a name change. The resulting United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) left most of NAFTA’s core framework intact.
Barely two months into his second term, Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, leading to retaliation and a faltering stock market. Nonetheless, he is doubling down, with plans to impose another 25% tariff on automobiles and auto parts – a policy that is projected to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers alike. Once again, the “art of the deal” is yielding losses for everyone, because Trump approaches negotiation as a zero-sum battle, rather than as a chance to add value.
Consider a classic example: Two sisters argue over the last orange in the fridge and ultimately agree to split it in half. One uses the peel for baking and throws away the pulp; the other eats the pulp and discards the peel. Economists call this a Pareto-inefficient agreement. Had the sisters appreciated their underlying interests, each could have walked away with exactly what she wanted, and nothing would have been wasted – a far better outcome than simply dividing the orange.
Had Trump applied this principle to NAFTA, he could have unlocked much more value for America, such as by securing better terms for US businesses in digital trade, finance, and technology exports, while allowing Canada and Mexico to protect key industries that were important to them. The opportunity to expand the pie was there; but Trump’s combative approach squandered it.
I have taught hundreds of students – from undergraduates to MBAs to senior executives – how to negotiate more effectively. While many start out viewing negotiation as a zero-sum game, they quickly learn that competing for the biggest slice of the pie is only one part of the process. Far better outcomes come from expanding the pie, by pursuing mutual gains.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Mutual-gains negotiation, rigorously validated in both experimental and real-world settings, rests on two core truths. First, most negotiations involve multiple issues and people with different priorities. Second, building relationships is at least as important as closing a deal. Trust and respect are at least as important as material goods and money. As the age-old Arabic proverb reminds us, “honor before bread.”
The best negotiators know that creative trade-offs abound in real-world negotiations, and missed opportunities are often costly to both parties. They also know that most negotiations are not one-time deals, and that better outcomes are to be had by patiently building rapport, negotiating ethically, and exploring the other side’s interests.
But Trump sees cooperation as weakness. In his view, any gesture of goodwill is a concession, and every negotiation is an antagonistic contest over short-term gains. This mindset is fundamentally mismatched with the demands of modern diplomacy. It jeopardizes not only America’s long-term material interests (by redirecting trade flows and undercutting net job creation) but also the intangibles (trust, stability, and strategic influence) that underpin America’s global standing.
Negotiators with a win-lose mindset often assume that unpredictability gives them an edge; in fact, it just creates confusion, alienates partners, and risks destructive escalation. Hence, Trump’s erratic tariff policies (presumably intended to extract short-term concessions) have triggered counter-tariffs, raised fears of a long-term recession, and undermined America’s credibility.
America’s economic ties with its European allies – relations that support millions of US jobs – have also been fractured by Trump’s extreme threats. He consistently fails to anticipate how others will respond, namely, with their own tariffs, economic boycotts, and other punishments. Decades of research have shown that people naturally reciprocate aggressive behavior – a phenomenon known as psychological reactance – thus creating a spiral where threats increase, rendering mutual gains unattainable. In an effective negotiation, threats should be used only strategically and sparingly, with the goal of returning quickly to an interest-based dialogue.
Europe has plenty to offer America. NATO enables crucial intelligence sharing that helps both the US and Europe detect and deter terrorism, cyberattacks, and other threats. Transatlantic collaboration has been essential for building coordinated responses to crises that no country can manage alone.
Yet rather than maximizing the benefits of cooperation, Trump has undermined NATO, disparaged allies, and yielded to Russian interests without getting anything in return. He has even floated the idea of annexing Canada and territory from other allies, like Denmark. Such moves inevitably sow chaos, weaken alliances, and embolden adversaries. If America’s allies seek new security arrangements with rival powers, that could lead to even more instability.
The US is a technological superpower. Its global partnerships and unmatched scientific infrastructure have driven extraordinary innovation, from medicine to advanced computing, making it the envy of the world. Without these assets, rivals like China may surpass the US in critical technologies – from AI and quantum computing to drones.
America needs a new playbook based on trust, mutual gain, and long-term strategy. And it needs a bipartisan Council of Negotiation Advisers to help the president forge deals accordingly.
Trump’s win-lose approach to dealmaking has already begun to unravel America’s carefully cultivated international relationships. But US history has shown that strong alliances, not reckless threats, secure American power. That is not weakness. It is how truly strong countries lead.