Trump’s Foreign Policy: Purely Transactional
President Trump will incorporate “The Art of the Deal” in most, if not every, foreign policy interaction. Where will this mentality take Ukraine, Russia, and Europe as the anticipated peace agreement draws near?
In just over one month since the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, the contours of a broader foreign policy strategy are starting to take shape. From the threat of imposing tariffs to focusing on acquiring resources and real estate, the strategy is as assertive as it is all-encompassing, applying to allies and adversaries alike.
Whether for Europe, China, or the Middle East, the message has been made clear: everything’s transactional, and whether the result will be punitive actions or an agreement will be subject to negotiations.
This strategy has already manifested itself across several fronts.
All Around The World
When it comes to trade, Trump’s threat of twenty-five percent tariffs against Mexico and Canada led both countries to offer concessions and make a deal at the last minute.
In Gaza, Trump has floated the prospect of U.S. ownership and control over the strip, which countries throughout the Middle East have rejected, yet has also led to a diplomatic scramble to propose alternative arrangements. In line with this theme, foreign aid has been the issue where the Trump administration has had perhaps the most hardline stance.
The most prominent example being shutting down USAID, though even here Trump has suggested some wiggle room for negotiations and exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
All of these trends are highly relevant to the war in Ukraine, which is amid a flurry of diplomatic activity related to ending the protracted conflict. Leading up to Trump’s now infamous meeting and verbal clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28, following Trump’s phone calls with Zelensky and Putin, expressing that an end to the war must come “immediately.”
This was quickly followed by the first high-level meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in more than three years held in Riyadh, with Ukrainian and European officials notably absent. This came after U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth paid his first visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels, where he outlined key elements of the Trump administration’s vision of ending the conflict.
This included no NATO membership for Ukraine, the unrealistic nature of a return of Ukrainian territory held by Russia, and the need for Europeans to take a leading role in providing security guarantees for Ukraine.
The EU And Ukraine: Outside The Loop
This frenzy of activity has set off alarm bells for both Ukrainian and EU leaders, who view such concessions as a threat to the security of Ukraine and Europe alike. However, this administration’s approach, which also drew concerns at the Munich Security Conference, can be seen as just the starting point for negotiations.
The Trump administration’s position on the final terms of an agreement is likely still subject to change and will depend on not only the shifting relationship between the U.S. and the three primary players of Ukraine, Russia, and the Europeans, but what and how they are willing to negotiate.
For Ukraine, the biggest issue for any agreement is to obtain security guarantees from the West, particularly from the United States, as a deterrent against Russia. With the U.S. now effectively putting NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, a security guarantee will depend on Kyiv’s ability to play into the transactional approach of the Trump administration.
This is where Trump’s insistence that Ukraine provide the U.S. access to its rare earth minerals comes in, rather than abandon Ukraine, it is simply an aforementioned transactional approach to the Ukrainian issue.
It is worth noting that this idea was originally floated by Zelensky as part of his peace plan last year before Trump was even re-elected, showing how Kyiv anticipated and pivoted to the Trump administration’s transactional approach.
It is still possible for the two countries to salvage and formalize the critical minerals agreement, though Kyiv will likely have to reformulate its approach to obtaining future security guarantees from Washington moving forward.
The Art Of The…Transactional Approach
In the meantime, Trump’s approach will be no less consequential for Russia.
While Trump has been accused of playing into Putin’s hand by taking Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table, this does not mean that the Trump administration is unwilling to also pressure Russia through punitive actions.
Indeed, various U.S. officials have floated the idea of tightening energy sanctions on Russia if they cannot agree to peace, while Vance recently reiterated the prospect of expanding U.S. sanctions and potentially even “military tools of leverage” if Moscow resists a deal. There could be other concessions that the United States could seek out of Moscow, particularly when it comes to China, which the Trump administration has made clear is at the top of its foreign policy priority list.
Let’s not forget the Europeans, who are also subject to Trump’s transactional approach, as the President has long linked defense spending by European countries to maintaining continued U.S. support for NATO. EU leaders themselves have acknowledged this, and such spending is now going to be an even more crucial element, given that the Trump administration is calling for the Europeans to take the lead when it comes to Ukraine’s security guarantees.
There is, of course, the fear that both the EU and Ukraine will be frozen out of U.S. negotiations with Russia entirely. While that concern may be justified, the Trump administration’s approach could also be seen as a form of pressure for the Europeans to take on a more proactive role when it comes to Ukraine’s security.
However, that does not mean that the United States will be unwilling to provide security support for either Europe or Ukraine, rather, Trump has sent the message that such support will be less based on “shared values” and more contingent upon burden sharing and tangible benefits.
Ultimately, the success of the Trump administration’s transactional approach will be measured by the outcome of the negotiations, as well as the enforcement and sustainability of whatever agreement is reached.
Such an approach can accelerate the prospects of a ceasefire deal, or could also accelerate Europe’s path to autonomy. Of course, this will depend on the specific details of a deal that have yet to be hammered out.
What is clear, however, is that Trump’s approach to ending the Ukraine conflict, and indeed to its relations with Ukraine and Europe as a whole, will be transactional. How Ukraine, Russia, and the Europeans respond to this approach will be key in shaping the future of Ukraine and Transatlantic security overall.
Eugene Chausovsky is a Senior Director at the New Lines Institute. Chausovsky previously served as a Senior Eurasia Analyst at the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor for more than ten years. His analytical work has focused on political, economic, and security issues about Russia, Eurasia, and China and global connectivity issues related to energy and climate change.
Image Credit: Shutterstock.