By Bruce Altschuler
Many of those who voted for Donald Trump for President were attracted by his supposed dealmaking skills as advertised in the best-selling book, The Art of the Deal. In fact, his time as President has demonstrated that he is a terrible negotiator. Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of that book, wrote in the Washington Post in 2017 that “Many of the deals in The Art of the Deal were massive failures … but Trump had me describe each of them as a huge success.” A few of Trump’s deals were so unsuccessful that they resulted in bankruptcies.
Negotiating international agreements is hard work. The process often takes time, necessitating compromises as part of a process of give and take. It requires not only a deep understanding of the issues involved but also of the language and culture of those with whom you are negotiating. You need to be a good listener, which means understanding the meaning of what the other side is saying and what they are willing to settle for. Making maximalist demands, then threatening and insulting the other side when they fail to accept them, is unlikely to achieve a successful result.
President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, the JCPOA, provides an instructive example of a long process that involved both political and technical expertise. Not only did the negotiators need to understand each side’s political culture, knowledge of nuclear fuel cycles, centrifuges and nuclear stockpiles, as well as how verification would work.
After an interim agreement between Iran, the five permanent members of the Security Council, and Germany was signed in 2013, it took an additional year and a half to agree to the 160-page JCPOA. The US delegation included not only the Secretary of State and experienced diplomats but also Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, a former chair of the Department of Physics at MIT who provided expertise in nuclear energy. By contrast, Trump’s negotiators with Iran were two real estate developers, Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both with business interests in the Middle East. Their proposed agreements are rarely more than a few pages long.
Under the 2015 deal, in exchange for partial relief from economic sanctions, Iran agreed to limit nuclear enrichment to 3.67% (more than 90% is needed for a bomb), dismantle much of its nuclear program, accept extensive international inspection, and a permanent prohibition on activities linked to developing an explosive nuclear device. In 2018, after consistently denouncing the agreement, Trump announced that the US would withdraw from it. In a televised address, he called it “one of the worst and most one sided” deals the US had ever entered. He went on to declare that he would negotiate a far better agreement but, despite his imposition of additional sanctions on Iran, there has been no agreement. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, prior to the June 2026 bombing of Iran, they had enriched 440 kg of uranium to 60%, well short of bomb levels but far above what would have been permitted had the JCPOA remained in force.
Losing patience with negotiations, Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. Despite his claim that this bombing had “obliterated” Iran’s capacity for nuclear weapons, he started a war the following February, with the justification that, as Vice-President Vance put it, “Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.” Every time Iran refuses to accede to Trump’s demands, he makes threats such as “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Fortunately, he backed off that threat at that moment but, despite an incompletely observed cease-fire, such threats have continued.
Other Trump negotiations show a similar impatience. During the 2024 campaign, he promised to end the war in Ukraine “on day one.” When that didn’t happen, he claimed it was said in jest but little progress has been made during the 15 months since. Frustrated, he attacked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in a televised confrontation during an Oval Office meeting. When this and occasional meetings with either Zelensky or Vladamir Putin had little effect, he seems to have lost interest and left negotiations to the ubiquitous but ineffective Witkoff as the war has continued with thousands more deaths.
What about the other wars that Trump claims to have “solved” in his campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize? Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have signed a US backed peace agreement but it has not stopped the fighting. The White House claims that a dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam had “ended” but there is no evidence of an actual agreement. Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought for more than 30 years. They had agreed to a cease fire before Trump hosted a White House meeting. No resolution has resulted. Most importantly, the fragile cease fires in the Middle East are barely holding as people in Gaza and Lebanon continue to be victims of war.
Trump’s tariff negotiations show a similar pattern. When he announced “Liberation Day,” a series of unilateral tariffs intended to coerce other countries into trade agreements, the White House claimed it would lead to 90 deals in 90 days. Instead, he achieved only two preliminary agreements before the Supreme Court ruled most of his tariffs unconstitutional. His pattern of threat and withdrawal led cynics to impose the nickname TACO for Trump always chickens out.
Unfortunately, as an alternative to negotiations, Trump has control over the most powerful military in the world. When he doesn’t get his way, he has used it to blow things up and kill large numbers of innocent people, often in violation of international law. Failing to get his way, he throws a social media tantrum, attacking his adversaries and threatening still worse death and destruction. This is dealmaking that the world cannot afford.
Dr. Bruce Altschuler is emeritus professor of political science.
