The question of how best to deal with US President Donald Trump is looming large on the global stage, as nations and their leaders alike grapple with the erratic nature of Trump’s policies.
Both US allies and adversaries find themselves in a constant state of unease, wary of sudden shifts that could affect them profoundly. Trying to predict how Trump will react in any set of circumstances is difficult, so treading calmly but with a formulated strategy is essential.
How to deal with Trump so as best to safeguard a nation’s economy, international standing, and borders is in many leaders’ minds today. Should one stand up to him, or should one meekly bow to his demands and proposals? Should one cave in or be resolute and maybe risk too much?
The Trump of today is different to the Trump of his earlier presidency. This time round, he won the US presidential elections with a clear majority in what was a true comeback, and millions of Americans are still behind him, giving him carte blanche to satisfy his ego and accomplish his promises in the hopes that they will also gain in the process.
His power tilts his actions towards not only dominance but also aggression, if only verbally at this point, as he speaks on their behalf. Today, Trump has told the world that the US calls the shots and that no tolerance or goodwill towards friend or foe will affect how he deals with matters arising, allowing him to refuse to work within existing diplomatic norms.
Trump’s first Vice-President Mike Pence, cannot compete with his current one, J D Vance, who follows Trump’s methods to a T with no questions asked. In the six short weeks since he became US vice-president, Vance has berated European leaders, the British Prime Minister and the British in general, and the Ukrainian president.
At first, I thought that nations and their leaders should find ways to safeguard their bilateral ties with the US during the current troubling times and not compromise them. They should also try to maintain the ownership of their decisions and the good of their countries. Balancing the two may be difficult, but, I believed, it is essential to maintain a good relationship with the US while also upholding one’s own entitlements.
I also thought that national leaders would not be able to go against Trump without major consequences. They should give him enough credit to signal his victory as a way of achieving their own needs. Negotiations with the US administration should be done with congeniality and not confrontation. If you defy Trump, you lose; if you condescend to him, you still lose, and you are looked down upon. However, if you reward Trump with appreciative tokens that he can display on his mantelpiece and show off to his followers, you may end up on the right track.
The leaders who have succeeded in attaining this balance have been the ones who have given Trump his standing and accepted his might. European leaders have rushed to the US, trying to reclaim a role for themselves on Ukraine after they were cut out of the US-Russia talks. Leader after leader has sat next to Trump in the Oval Office, either to get something in return or nothing at all.
President Emmanuel Macron of France played it safe. He came as a friend not as an opponent. First, he flattered “dear Donald,” but then he fact-checked him when Trump said that Europe was being paid back 60 per cent of the aid it had provided to Ukraine. Touching Trump’s arm to interject, Macron said, “no, in fact, to be frank, we paid 60 per cent of the total effort: it was, through, like the US, loans, guarantees, and grants.”
During his visit to the White House, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer realised that the best way to deal with the US president was not to challenge him but rather to acknowledge his authority. He was quite smart when he extended a formal invitation to visit Britain signed by King Charles III. This pleased Trump, who accepted the invitation on the spot. Starmer also informed Trump of the UK’s increase in defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, which was received favourably by Trump.
Then a major fiasco occurred in the shape of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the White House, which did not last over an hour. There was a shocking scene in the Oval Office, and Zelensky paid the price. Defiant and unappreciative, and more importantly unaware of diplomatic tactics, Zelensky was berated openly by both Trump and Vance and ejected from the White House without signing a US-Ukraine minerals deal that is seen as key to American backing for a truce with Russia.
To counteract Zelensky’s visit and to try to salvage what had been destroyed, the UK, France, and Ukraine then agreed to work on a ceasefire plan that they will present to the US for its approval.
However, I have also seen another way of dealing with Trump – Canada’s way. When Trump placed 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian exports to the US, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted boldly by threatening retaliation. However, at the same time he offered Trump cooperation on border issues, including clamping down on migration and the flow of the deadly drug fentanyl. That was good enough for Trump to postpone implementing tariffs on Canada for a month.
When the tariffs on Canadian goods were back on the table, Trudeau lashed out by saying that they were “dumb,” indicating another way of dealing with Trump. He announced reinstating 25 per cent retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of goods imported into Canada from the US, sparking fears of a trade war between two mutual friends.
The Canadian provinces are reacting in a similar tit-for-tat way. The first to do so was Ontario, which introduced a 25 per cent export tax on electricity powering homes in the US, removed US liquor from Canadian shelves, and ended a contract with Elon Musk-owned satellite Internet service Starlink. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that if the US tariffs on Canadian goods are escalated, he will consider cutting off US states like Minnesota, Michigan, and New York from Canadian power.
Just hours after announcing the tariffs, Trump backed down from his trade war with Canada and temporarily postponed imposing the tariffs, leaving everyone wondering whether Canada’s retaliatory measures had succeeded in changing his position.
Two different strategies for dealing with Trump are occurring simultaneously. We will have to wait to see which one achieves the better results.
The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 13 March, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: