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
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS