Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich argues that Donald Trump’s influence in international relations stems from a deliberate rejection of established norms rather than traditional diplomatic strategy. By treating global institutions as transactional, Trump leverages a “first-mover advantage” to extract personal and political concessions, leaving allies to manage the resulting institutional instability.
The Transactional Nature of Trump’s Foreign Policy
During the Nato summit just ended, Trump expressed public frustration with the alliance, questioning why the U.S. continues to fund the organization while criticizing European energy and immigration policies. According to Reich, these outbursts—which included threats to ignore conflicts in Ukraine and suggestions of territorial expansion regarding Greenland—did not diminish the deference shown to him by other world leaders.
Reich contends that this respect is rooted in fear. Because Trump operates without regard for conventional rules, treaties, or established diplomatic ethics, other nations feel compelled to appease him to avoid unpredictable, unilateral actions. This approach mirrors a “small-town thief” scenario: by being the first to break the unwritten rules of a system built on trust, the violator gains significant leverage before others can adapt their defenses.
Robert Reich characterizes Trump’s behavior as “non-ethical” or “amoral” rather than simply unethical. He argues that because Trump does not subscribe to a baseline of agreed-upon standards, he cannot “breach” them in the traditional sense, as his primary focus remains on winning at all costs.
Institutional Impact and Long-Term Consequences
The impact of this approach extends beyond immediate diplomatic tensions. Reich notes that institutions such as Nato, Fifa, and the U.S. Department of Justice rely on a baseline of trust—specifically the assumption that an American president will adhere to established norms. When that trust is shattered, these organizations face a “high cost” to rebuild their security and legitimacy.
While Trump’s methods have secured short-term gains, Reich warns that the long-term burden falls on the global community. Following his term, the U.S. and its allies will likely face the expensive, time-consuming task of reinforcing institutions against future violations. This cycle of “shattering norms” forces every other participant to invest heavily in protections that were previously unnecessary.
The Shift from “We” to “I” in Governance
A notable example of this shift occurred during recent international discussions regarding the World Cup. When faced with criticism over his intervention in sports, Trump stated, “I’d say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020.” Reich points out that Trump corrected himself from using “we”—which implies collective, ethical judgment—to “I,” signaling a transition toward a purely self-centered decision-making framework.
This rejection of collective standards is a core component of his political power. By operating in a world defined only by calculations of personal wealth and glory, Trump avoids the constraints that typically bind democratic leaders, effectively changing the rules of the game to suit his immediate objectives.
Pro Tips for Understanding Political Norms
- Observe the Language: Pay attention to whether a leader uses “we” (collective ethics) or “I” (individual transaction) when justifying policy changes.
- Analyze Institutional Trust: Look at how international organizations respond to unilateral actions; silence or deference often indicates an attempt to mitigate risk from an unpredictable actor.
- Identify First-Mover Advantages: Recognize that breaking a long-standing norm often provides a temporary power spike, which is frequently followed by a long-term erosion of the system’s stability.
Frequently Asked Questions
According to Reich, leaders treat him with deference because they fear the unpredictable consequences of his actions. They are attempting to manage the instability caused by his willingness to violate international norms.
Reich uses the term to suggest that Trump does not operate within a framework of right or wrong. Instead, his actions are driven entirely by transactional gain, making him amoral rather than unethical.
It is the power gained by being the first party to ignore established rules. Because others trust the rules, they are unprepared for a violation, allowing the first mover to secure concessions before the rest of the community can implement new security measures.
What are your thoughts on how international norms will evolve in the coming years? Join the conversation by leaving a comment below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into global politics.
