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 is not 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, that cycle would only repeat itself, jeopardizing the US’ interests, 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 US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) left most of NAFTA’s core framework intact.
Barely two months into his second term, Trump has already imposed 25 percent 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 percent 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 that 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 that principle to NAFTA, he could have unlocked much more value for the US, 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.
Mutual gains negotiation, rigorously validated in 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.
However, 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. That mindset is fundamentally mismatched with the demands of modern diplomacy. It jeopardizes not only the US’ long-term material interests (by redirecting trade flows and undercutting net job creation), but also the intangibles (trust, stability and strategic influence) that underpin Washington’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 the US’ credibility.
The US’ 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 would 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 the US. NATO enables crucial intelligence sharing that helps 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, such as Denmark. Such moves inevitably sow chaos, weaken alliances and embolden adversaries. If US 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 those assets, rivals such as China might surpass the US in critical technologies — from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to drones.
The US 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 the US’ carefully cultivated international relationships. However, US history has shown that strong alliances, not reckless threats, secure American power. That is not weakness. It is how truly strong countries lead.
Michele Gelfand, professor of organizational behavior and psychology at Stanford University, is the author of Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: Tight and Loose Cultures and the Secret Signals That Direct Our Lives.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
Deflation in China is persisting, raising growing concerns domestically and internationally. Beijing’s stimulus policies introduced in September last year have largely been short-lived in financial markets and negligible in the real economy. Recent data showing disproportionately low bank loan growth relative to the expansion of the money supply suggest the limited effectiveness of the measures. Many have urged the government to take more decisive action, particularly through fiscal expansion, to avoid a deep deflationary spiral akin to Japan’s experience in the early 1990s. While Beijing’s policy choices remain uncertain, questions abound about the possible endgame for the Chinese economy if no decisive
RSS