Shocking, destabilizing, and theatrical: Donald Trump’s negotiation style

We weren’t used to this. Within just a few weeks, Donald Trump floated the idea of annexing Greenland and Panama, threatened or announced tariffs “on cars and other things,” claimed that the European Union “was formed to screw the United States,” and suggested turning Gaza into a riviera resort. Then he publicly humiliated Zelensky in a live broadcast during a press conference on Friday, February 28.

We weren’t used to this because diplomatic negotiations usually follow different rules. But what are these rules? And what is Trump’s negotiation style? Why is he getting away with it?

Negotiations generally have two objectives: building a long-term relationship that benefits all parties (collaborative negotiation) or securing an immediate advantage at the other party’s expense (distributive negotiation). While both approaches are common in business, diplomacy (at least between friendly nations in peacetime) typically follows the collaborative model. In fact, diplomatic decisions are usually part of a broader, long-term strategy.

Trump has decisively broken this pattern, applying a distributive negotiation style to a domain that has traditionally been seen as collaborative. His primary goal in negotiations is to gain an economic benefit rather than secure citizens’ well-being. He prioritizes short-term gains over long-term stability—and this approach does not seem to be hurting his popularity. If, regardless of actual data, the public perceives a period of instability and uncertainty, the long-term horizon becomes blurry, and voters appear satisfied with small, immediate wins.

What’s more, American culture, which is more informal and short-term-oriented than here in Europe, doesn’t view Trump’s style as quite as “alien” as Europeans do.

Yet even in the realm of distributive negotiations, his approach is over the top. He almost always starts with extreme demands, reminiscent of real estate negotiations from decades past: ask for 1,000 to settle at 500. In negotiations, it doesn’t matter how outrageous the initial demand is. Its purpose is twofold: to create an anchor (once the demand is stated, negotiations start from there) and to trigger a shock, forcing the other party into exhausting talks where every concession comes at a cost.

In business negotiations, objectives are usually clear and expressed in monetary terms. Trump’s style is destabilizing even in this regard: he may start with an ask, but his true goal may be something entirely different. If he threatens 25% tariffs, the other party cannot be certain that he aims to settle for 10% or 15% - he might be pushing for increased purchases of American gas, cars, or services instead.

All of this is unfolding under the media spotlight. When Trump makes an extreme demand or rebukes Zelensky, he does so theatrically, taking a tough guy stance and exerting pressure on his counterpart, much like a trial in a medieval public square.

Negotiation theory teaches that a style like this can only be countered with a similar approach. Conversely, responding to a distributive negotiator with a cooperative attitude means continuing to take his hits and at the same time legitimizing his behavior (as we’ve recently heard said of Europe’s stance toward Trump).

In short, Europe would need a figure capable of temporarily playing the role of a tough distributive negotiator. I use the word “role” because it should be an act, and “temporarily” because they should be ready to revert to their natural stance as a collaborative negotiator once it becomes clear that brute force and threats won’t work.  On the other hand, confronting Trump with another naturally aggressive distributive negotiator risks triggering an unresolvable clash between oversized egos.

Theoretically, another option would be to form a united front to steer negotiations back to a more civil framework. But this is hardly feasible. “Divide and conquer” is one of the most frequently used tactics of a distributive negotiator. It is unlikely we will ever see Trump at a negotiation summit surrounded by 27 European leaders. He prefers to summon them one by one and engage in bilateral talks.