Donald Trump rose to the presidency by highlighting his reputation as a master negotiator, vowing to apply his “Art of the Deal” mindset to governing the country. During his first term, he tackled major negotiations involving trade, policy, and international security—often ignoring conventional protocols. His approach was marked by heavy pressure, surprise tactics, and blunt communication to achieve his goals.
Business leaders often become students of negotiating since they do it all the time. What can be learned from Trump’s role as negotiator in chief? Here’s a close look at his methods, focusing on how he used power, unpredictability, and aggressive deal-making. His approach has pros and cons, and ways to handle it should you ever find yourself facing these strategies and tactics.
Using Power and Pressure
One of Trump’s main strategies is using America’s economic and political strength to gain an advantage. He often threatens high tariffs or sanctions to pressure other countries. Calling himself the “Tariff Man,” he believed that America’s large economy gave him power over other nations. For example, when renegotiating NAFTA, Trump threatened to cancel the deal entirely, which helped push Canada and Mexico into agreeing to a new trade agreement, the USMCA. However, over time, some leaders stopped taking his threats seriously, making it harder for him to use this tactic effectively.
Trump also applied this strategy beyond trade. In 2019, he threatened tariffs on Mexico unless they did more to stop illegal immigration. While businesses and some advisers worried about the impact, Mexico quickly responded by sending troops to the border. His supporters saw this as proof that his harsh approach worked. Trump also pressured NATO allies to spend more on defense and even shut down the U.S. government for a record 35 days to push Congress to fund his border wall.
He has consistently sought an advantage and used that as leverage to extract advantageous deals. This pattern started during his days as a New York City real estate developer and continued into his political career.
Exaggeration as a Strategy
Trump often uses exaggeration to influence negotiations, a tactic he called “truthful hyperbole.” In his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, he described this as a way to capture attention and make others see him as stronger than he might be.
As president, he has made bold threats about massive tariffs on countries like China, Canada, and Mexico in trade talks. While he often settled for less extreme deals, starting with enormous demands allowed him to appear as if he had made compromises when, in reality, he was still getting what he wanted.
He also made wild claims in foreign policy, such as suggesting Canada should become part of the U.S. or making dramatic military threats. Even when these statements weren’t serious, they kept opponents uncertain about what he might do.
Some people felt that this made Trump seem unreliable, hurting trust in his words. Others believed his unpredictability in forced rivals to take him seriously. His style reflected the “madman theory,” the idea that opponents may be more likely to back down if they think a leader might do something extreme.
He used this approach with suppliers in the construction trades, threatening to replace major suppliers once they had committed resources with far cheaper options (which might or might not have existed).
Unpredictability as a Tactic
Trump has said that he believed that being unpredictable gave him an edge. In a 2016 speech, he said the U.S. needed to be “more unpredictable.” He frequently used phrases like “We’ll see” to keep people guessing about his next move. One of his former aides explained that this was a deliberate strategy to prevent others from knowing what to expect.
During trade talks with South Korea, Trump had his negotiators warn officials that he might pull out of the deal at any moment. This pressure led South Korea to make some concessions. He used the same tactic in North Korea negotiations, shifting from calling Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man” and threatening war to suddenly agreeing to a historic summit in 2018. This kept North Korea off balance and temporarily stopped missile testing without the U.S. making significant concessions.
However, Trump’s unpredictability also had downsides. Some allies became frustrated, unsure of what the U.S. wanted. His approach confused the 2018–2019 government shutdown, as even his party struggled to follow his shifting demands. Over time, some countries, like China, stopped taking his threats seriously, making it harder for him to use this tactic effectively.
Blunt Communication and Public Negotiation
Trump often bypassed traditional diplomatic channels, preferring direct and public communication, especially on social media. He frequently tweeted during negotiations, calling out companies, foreign leaders, and lawmakers to pressure them publicly. He even admitted that his Twitter tactics were part of his negotiation strategy.
From the start, Trump broke diplomatic norms. He took calls from foreign leaders without following standard procedures, causing concern among U.S. allies. During a televised meeting with Democratic leaders in 2018, he openly declared he would be “proud to shut down the government” if he didn’t get border wall funding—a rare level of public confrontation in political negotiations.
While his blunt style appealed to his supporters, it often made negotiations more difficult. For example, when Mexico’s president refused to pay for a border wall, Trump tweeted about it, forcing the Mexican leader to cancel their meeting. His habit of insulting allies, such as calling Germany “captive” to Russia or criticizing Canada’s trade policies, made it harder for other leaders to make concessions without looking weak.
We all recall his blunt style on the show The Apprentice. His critiques were direct and harsh, sometimes ending with his catchphrase, “You’re Fired!”
A Recent Example
The recent negotiation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was a prime-time demonstration of the classic Trump negotiating techniques. He brought Zelensky to the White House and opened the conversation to the press, all designed to apply pressure to settle. When Zelensky refused to agree, Trump upped the ante, claiming Zelensky could start World War III. The solution proposed was not predictable, creating an economic relationship that would force the U.S. to protect Ukraine. Finally, Trump was highly direct, indicating the country would be buried without U.S. support. In a matter of a few minutes, Trump used most of the tools in his arsenal in the attempt to get a deal he had proposed.
Strengths of Trump’s Negotiation Style
Trump’s bold tactics have some clear advantages:
- Forcing Key Issues: He forced other countries to negotiate on issues they might have avoided by taking extreme positions and using U.S. power. His aggressive trade policies pressured China to sign a trade agreement in 2020 and pushed Mexico and Canada to update NAFTA.
- Winning Concessions: Trump’s willingness to walk away or impose costs sometimes worked. For instance, Mexico increased border security to avoid tariffs, and South Korea made trade adjustments under pressure. The person less committed to the deal has the power.
- Breaking Diplomatic Barriers: His outsider approach led to unexpected diplomatic moves, like meeting with Kim Jong Un and brokering new Middle East deals (the Abraham Accords). His willingness to shake up the system created opportunities for agreements that previous leaders avoided.
- Clear Messaging to Supporters: His tough talk reassured his political base that he was standing up for American interests, which gave him leverage since foreign leaders knew he wouldn’t easily back down.
Weaknesses of Trump’s Approach
Despite some successes, Trump’s style also has significant downsides:
- Damaging Trust and Alliances: His aggressive tactics strained relations with allies, making future cooperation harder. Some leaders ignore his threats, weakening his bargaining power.
- Lack of Compromise: Negotiations often require building trust and making deals that both sides can accept. Trump struggled with this, even within his party. For example, his inability to negotiate a health care deal in 2017 showed that even fellow Republicans found it difficult to work with him.
- Escalation Without Results: His brinkmanship sometimes has led to deadlock instead of agreements. The 35-day government shutdown in 2018-2019 over border wall funding ended without him getting what he wanted. His pressure campaign on Iran also failed to produce a new nuclear deal, and North Korea talks ultimately collapsed.
- Perception of Chaos: Many foreign leaders and negotiation experts have seen Trump’s approach as unstable rather than strategic. During his first administration, his mixed signals during the China trade war confused U.S. and foreign officials, making it harder to reach a lasting agreement. Some believed he gave in too quickly under pressure, exposing gaps between his tough talk and actual results.
The Takeaways
Trump’s negotiation style is unlike that of any other U.S. president. He favored pressure over compromise, exaggeration over hard facts, surprises over predictability, and public confrontation over private discussions. This approach has had mixed results. Yes, he forced significant issues like trade and military spending onto the global agenda and achieved some agreements. But his aggressive tactics often creates distrust, weakens alliances, and makes lasting deals harder to achieve.
Ultimately, Trump’s style reflected his bold, direct, unconventional personality. While it sometimes worked in short-term negotiations, it can leave many deals incomplete or temporary. His approach challenges traditional diplomacy, but whether it creates long-term benefits remains debated. Trump’s negotiating legacy has been a mix of dramatic moments, some wins, and many controversies, leaving experts divided on whether his tactics help or hurt the U.S. in the long run.
What it means for you
These approaches are not unique to politics. Trump developed his signature style in the real estate and licensing business. Negotiating with individuals who employ tactics similar to Donald Trump’s requires strategic preparation and adaptability. Trump’s negotiation style is often characterized by aggressive demands, disregard for traditional protocols, and a focus on maximizing personal advantage. To navigate such negotiations effectively, consider the following strategies:
- Understand Their Tactics: Recognize that aggressive negotiators may use extreme demands, slow concessions, or take-it-or-leave-it offers to unsettle counterparts. Being aware of these tactics allows you to remain composed and respond strategically.
- Establish Clear Objectives: Before negotiations, define your goals, priorities, and boundaries. Understanding your desired outcomes helps you resist pressure to make unfavorable concessions.
- Enhance Your Alternatives: Develop strong alternatives to the current negotiation, known as your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). A robust BATNA provides leverage and confidence, reducing susceptibility to coercive tactics.
- Make the First Offer: Presenting the initial proposal can anchor the negotiation in your favor. This approach sets the agenda and can influence the direction of subsequent discussions.
- Maintain Emotional Detachment: Aggressive negotiators might employ personal attacks or provocative behavior to elicit emotional reactions. Staying calm and focused on the issues prevents the negotiation process from derailing.
- Seek Mutual Gains: While the other party may focus on winning, strive to identify areas of mutual interest. Proposing solutions that benefit both sides can shift the dynamic toward a more collaborative negotiation.
- Be Prepared to Walk Away: If the negotiation becomes unproductive or excessively one-sided, be willing to end discussions. This demonstrates that you value fair outcomes and are not desperate to reach an agreement at any cost.
By implementing these strategies, you can effectively manage negotiations with individuals who utilize aggressive or coercive tactics, hopefully steering the process toward equitable and constructive outcomes.
