Just months after Donald Trump’s return to the White House, it has become clear: his style of "shock diplomacy" has not only persisted but has grown even more aggressive. Any attempt to challenge Washington’s demands is met with immediate threats and public pressure. Those who hoped that years out of power would make Trump more restrained were mistaken—ultimatums remain his go-to negotiating tactic.
However, a defining feature of his second term is the coordinated rigidity of his entire administration. The president’s advisors and influential Republican lawmakers no longer seek to soften his rhetoric—instead, they amplify it, reinforcing the overall pressure. The boundaries of "acceptable" public discourse are becoming increasingly blurred, while bold statements are now more frequently backed by concrete actions, such as sanctions or tariffs. In this new reality, compromise appears to be a lower priority. After all, intimidation is the far easier tool to wield.
A Shock Offensive Against the Nearest Neighbors
Barely into his second term, Donald Trump has reverted to a familiar tactic—loud economic threats aimed at the United States’ closest trading partners. On February 1, 2025, he announced a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, justifying it as a necessary measure to combat illegal migration and fentanyl smuggling. At first glance, it seemed that his administration was ready to ignite a new trade conflict with its neighbors. However, subsequent developments revealed that Trump’s true objectives lay elsewhere.
Canada and Mexico reacted immediately. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the tariffs "unacceptable" and announced retaliatory measures on U.S. goods. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned Washington’s unilateral approach, arguing that fighting drug trafficking requires cooperation rather than economic pressure. Both countries braced for a prolonged trade standoff.
Yet within days, Trump offered an alternative: if Canada and Mexico took additional steps to secure their borders and combat drug trafficking, the U.S. would reconsider its decision. By February 3, a deal had been struck: Canada agreed to tighten controls on precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production, while Mexico committed 10,000 troops to patrol its northern border. In exchange, Washington suspended the tariffs for 30 days.
This approach can be seen as a coercive strategy leveraging economic pressure. The initial tariff announcement was less about securing trade concessions and more about extracting concrete political and security commitments. By manufacturing an economic threat, Trump forced his partners to negotiate on his terms, allowing him to claim victory without making actual concessions. This method enabled him to maintain a position of strength without having to follow through on his threats.
Ukraine: From a Temporary Aid Suspension to a Demand to Cover All Costs
The economic pressure tactics employed in negotiations with Canada and Mexico were not limited to the United States’ immediate neighbors. Soon, the same approach was applied to Ukraine, whose reliance on American military assistance made it particularly vulnerable.
In January 2025, the Trump administration announced a 90-day suspension of all foreign aid, including military and economic support for Ukraine, citing the need to reassess programs and ensure they aligned with U.S. national interests. This decision came at a moment when Ukrainian forces were in urgent need of new arms shipments, and the country’s strategic reserves were reaching critical levels.
However, the suspension was merely the first step. Soon after, the Trump administration demanded that Ukraine compensate the United States for its financial support by granting American companies rights to develop lithium, titanium, and other rare-earth metal deposits on Ukrainian soil. This proposal was framed as a way to make aid "fair". Trump emphasized that Europe provided assistance in the form of loans, whereas the U.S. offered grants, placing Washington at a disadvantage.
Despite the proposal to create a special agreement with strategic partners "for the joint protection of the country's critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential" originally came from Ukrainian leadership, Trump seized on the idea—not only as a condition for potential future aid but also as retroactive compensation for U.S. assistance since February 2022. During discussions with Ukrainian officials, the American side suggested creating a joint fund that would channel a portion of revenues from Ukraine’s natural resource extraction. However, for Kyiv, such an arrangement risked a partial loss of control over key economic sectors, sparking debate among Ukrainian policymakers and the public.
strategic partners a special agreement for the joint protection of the country's critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential.
This episode underscores Trump’s broader strategy: he does not merely employ economic pressure but seeks to convert political support into tangible financial benefits for the United States. In Ukraine’s case, this translates into an effort to shift from unconditional aid to a system where American companies gain long-term economic advantages.
Withdrawal from Europe
As part of his broader reassessment of U.S. international commitments, Trump in his second term intensified pressure on NATO allies, casting doubt on Washington’s adherence to the principle of collective defense. He repeatedly stated that the protection of NATO member states would depend on their fulfillment of financial obligations, particularly the requirement to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. Failing to do so, he warned, could lead the U.S. to reconsider its role in ensuring their security.
In January 2025, the Trump administration imposed additional conditions: European allies were expected not only to boost their military budgets but also to prioritize the purchase of American-made weapons and military equipment. This demand was framed as a measure to strengthen transatlantic security, yet many European leaders saw it as a form of economic coercion.
As The Guardian noted, Trump also expressed skepticism about the reality of the Russian threat to NATO countries, claiming that Moscow posed no significant danger to the alliance. These statements sparked concern among Eastern European NATO members, who view Russia as the primary threat to their security.
Short-Term Gains vs. Strategic Trust
Trump’s foreign policy strategy in his second term is defined by a focus on securing immediate benefits for the United States, often through economic pressure and a reassessment of traditional alliance commitments. While this approach yields certain short-term results, it raises concerns about its long-term impact on international trust and stability.
The use of aggressive negotiating tactics allows the Trump administration to extract rapid concessions from other nations. For instance, the threat of tariffs against Canada and Mexico led to swift negotiations and agreements favorable to the U.S. Such actions showcase the president’s determination to defend national interests and can bolster domestic political support.
However, doubts over the reliability of American security guarantees may push other nations to seek alternative alliances or strengthen their own military capabilities, potentially destabilizing the international order.
Thus, while a strategy focused on short-term gains may be effective in specific cases, its systematic application without consideration of long-term consequences risks undermining U.S. strategic interests. Successful foreign policy requires a balance between immediate results and the preservation of trust among international partners.