Has Trump’s Diplomacy Been Successful?

I recently read an article, “Recovering the Lost Art of Diplomacy” (A. Wess Mitchell, Imprimis, February 2026).  Imprimis is a publication of Hillsdale College, so I was not surprised that the author’s views focused on diplomacy from a strong leadership perspective.  Mitchell posits that America lost the art of diplomacy under past presidents, with the U.S. State Department taking on goals that are detached from our national interests.  However, he is optimistic that America is recovering the lost art of diplomacy through the policies of Donald Trump (The Art of the Deal).

After reading Mitchell’s discourse and evaluating his logic, I thought it was worth my time to consider if Mitchell might be correct!

It is impossible to argue that, since returning to office some of Trump’s diplomacy has not been high‑impact, highly personal, and often force‑driven.  His policies have produced tactical successes.  But these “successes” have come with significant strategic costs. The evidence from recent reporting and analysis shows a clear pattern.  President Trump achieves short‑term outcomes through unilateral action and personal relationships, but often at the expense of institutional stability, alliances, and long‑term predictability.

One can also argue that Trump’s diplomacy has been effective inremoving adversarial leaders, reshaping trade agreements, and forcing negotiations.  On the other hand, his approach has not produced stable and sustainable international relationships.  He often bypasses established institutions, relies on personal power, and in many cases triggers unintended consequences.

Contrary to expectations of isolationism, Trump has chosen a foreign‑policy‑first agenda, reshaping trade, intervening militarily, and recalibrating alliances through his America First rhetoric.  He brags about his new trade negotiations, his attacks on drug trafficking, the arrest of President Maduro, and his view of great personal relationships with world leaders in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.  He notes strong relationships with Netanyahu, Xi Jinjing, and Putin. On the other hand, his relationships with Zelenski, Ramaphosa (President of South Africa), and most European leaders has damaged American credibility.

In pursuing his agenda, President Trump has sidestepped Congress, the State Department, and multilateral institutions like NATO and the United Nations, thus reducing long‑term policy coherence. Instead, he has relied on personal envoys and relationships rather than institutional diplomacy.   Individuals like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, can move quickly without bureaucratic barriers.  The result of this approach is the erosion of long-term diplomatic infrastructures.  In addition, many allies now perceive that America is unpredictable and not trustworthy!  The Trump administration has chosen spectacle and personal showmanship over traditional diplomatic norms.

Trump’s team, through the Department of “War” Defense, explicitly frames military action as a tool of diplomacy— “governed by strength… and power.”  His administration supports this power strategy by noting the success in Venezuela, the impact on drug trafficking, and the Memorandum of Understanding that has been reached with Iran.

However, the Iran war revealed that real‑world geopolitics do not always bend to coercive pressure, undermining Trump’s belief that force alone can dictate outcomes. Also, military interventions contradict his earlier promises to avoid new wars.

Has Trump been successful?  If you consider the following, you might argue that he has achieved rapid, high‑profile outcomes.  He has reshaped trade, coerced adversaries into accepting some of his agenda, developed stronger relationships with select leaders, and demonstrated that America will use force to support its diplomatic goals.

Has Trump failed in diplomatic efforts?  Yes, if you consider that he has failed to build durable alliances.  His policies have increased global economic instability.  His policy of military muscle flexing has produced costly conflicts, and as a result, rules-based diplomacy has been ignored.  But one would question whether this approach has been successful.

Trump’s diplomacy has been effective at winning battles, but not always at winning the war for long‑term U.S. influence and stability.  Trump’s diplomacy differs from previous administrations in structure, style, and strategic intent.  This is a sharp break from the post‑1945 U.S. foreign‑policy tradition which has been multilateral and institution centered.  Previous administrations (Reagan → Obama → Biden) treated alliances (NATO, EU partnerships) as strategic assets.  They relied heavily on the State Department, multilateral organizations, long‑term institutional commitments, and most importantly used diplomacy as a slow, consensus‑building process.

Previous administrations used professional diplomats, ambassadors, and interagency processes while emphasizing institutional continuity over personal relationships.  These administrations promoted democracy, human rights, and rule‑based order, framing foreign policy around shared values and long‑term commitments.  On the other hand, Trump’s approach reframes diplomacy as competitive deal‑making rather than value‑driven leadership.

Granted, there have been different approaches in the past.   For example, Bush can be viewed as an interventionist while Obama is often considered as restrained in his policies.  However, both worked within a predictable framework of alliance consultation and institutional process.

Despite “America First” rhetoric, Trump’s approach remains globally engaged, not isolationist. He prefers high‑impact, short military actions and coercive leverage. And most recently his Iran diplomacy—culminating in a 2026 memorandum—reveals the limits of force‑centric negotiation.