In today’s complex global landscape, the dynamics of deal-making have become a focal point of analysis, particularly in relation to former President Trump’s approach. His claims regarding Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, and assertions of control over its oil reserves serve as striking examples of his larger-than-life persona and the substantial geopolitical implications that follow. How should one gauge the credibility of Trump’s various deal claims? In certain contexts, such as the controversial Ukraine “raw earths” agreement, a critical reassessment might warrant a complete dismissal.
By Satyajit Das, a former banker and author of numerous technical works on derivatives and several general titles: Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006 and 2010), Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (2011) and A Banquet of Consequence – Reloaded (2016 and 2021). His latest book is on ecotourism – Wild Quests: Journeys into Ecotourism and the Future for Animals (2024). This is an expanded version of a piece first published on 1 January 2026 in the New Indian Express print edition.
President Trump has popularized a transactional approach to international relations, yet a closer look reveals questionable competencies in his deal-making strategies. His understanding of the intricacies of negotiations, beyond the scripted reality TV format, appears lacking.
Exceeding Authority
One major area of concern is Trump’s frequent overreach of executive powers. Measures such as tariffs and mandates requiring chipmakers to remit 15 percent of revenues to the U.S. for sales to China raise legal questions. Additionally, directives to foreign states limiting their investments in U.S. markets undermine legality and fairness.
Negotiating with Limited Authorities
Another pitfall is Trump’s tendency to negotiate with international leaders who often lack the authority to conclude binding agreements. In many democracies, deals necessitate legislative approval, making Trump’s agreements with figures like EU President Ursula von der Leyen largely ineffective unless ratified by member states. Likewise, private sector stakeholders frequently remain unrepresented during negotiations, undermining the viability of any proposed agreements.
Arbitrary Diplomatic Interventions
In diplomatic contexts, Trump’s interventions can seem capricious. For instance, his attempts at mediating the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict were met with disinterest from New Delhi. In the Middle East, his agreements involving Israel often overlook necessary parties such as the Palestinians, making it unlikely that proposals will be accepted by those directly affected by the conflicts.
Neglecting Historical Context
Trump’s well-documented resistance to briefings further detracts from his effectiveness in international negotiations. His plans for development along the Gaza Strip fail to acknowledge the underlying issues. Misunderstandings of countries’ historical grievances, such as those of Japan and China, fundamentally undermine constructive discourse and deepen existing tensions.
Lack of Clarity and Detail
Trade and investment agreements often require extensive deliberation, sometimes taking years to finalize. Trump’s short attention span contributes to a lack of essential clarity, as many deals remain undocumented or poorly articulated, muddled in the noise of impulsive tweets. Important nuances can be lost amidst the chaos, complicating bureaucratic efforts to reach workable conclusions.
Mathematically Improbable Agreements
Moreover, many of Trump’s proposed deals are structurally flawed. For instance, the EU’s commitment under one of his trade agreements to purchase $250 billion of U.S. energy products annually screams impossibility, resting on factors beyond direct control. The limitations of U.S. production capabilities and the required infrastructure build-out across Europe create logistical nightmares.
Inconsistency and Constant Renegotiation
For any contractual agreement to be effective, adherence is essential. However, influenced by the last individual who caught his attention—a phenomenon often termed the Trump Proximity Theory—he frequently renegotiates established deals. This pattern is evident in how he has treated his own US-Mexico-Canada Agreement with little regard for its integrity.
Conclusion
Trump’s approach to deal-making can be summarized as a mechanism for asserting power and drawing media attention rather than achieving lasting, mutually beneficial agreements. As such, the resulting tariffs and diplomatic initiatives are destined to shift based on his evolving political and personal drives. The prevailing need for Trump to “win big” at every turn often contradicts the reality that sustainable agreements must offer lasting advantages for all parties involved, leading to consequences that could harm America’s long-term strategic interests.
© Satyajit Das 2026 All Rights Reserved
