Trump: The Inconsistent Parent

I often use parenting analogies in my introductory international relations course (see below for a disclaimer about using this analogy). The basic idea is that as a parent, I want to get my kids to take a certain action, and I have tools (carrots, sticks, trust) to get them to take that action. In the same way, countries attempt to get other countries to take certain actions and have tools (carrots, sticks, trust) to get them to take that action.

Parenting, like diamonds, has four “Cs”: Credibility, which includes consistency and commitment, and communication. If I want my kid to do something, and to get them to do that thing I offer a carrot (allowance, ice cream) or a stick (limited screen time, grounding) then I need to clearly communication what I want them to do and have the credibility (through demonstrated consistency and commitment) that I will follow through (the 4 “Cs” build trust). If I lack credibility or do not communicate what I want them to do, all the promises of carrots or threats of sticks in the world will not matter.

It’s the same thing for international relations. Compellence (getting a country to take an action) or deterrence (stopping a country from taking an action) requires credibility and communication. The country needs to communicate what action they want to happen or not happen, and the promises and threats to compel or deter the action must be deemed credible.

Let’s consider Trump’s tariff policy. What is the purpose? Is it to bring jobs back to the U.S.? Is it to raise revenues for the national government so we can lower income taxes? Is it a threat to negotiate better deals with other countries? Apparently, it is all the above, depending on the day and which administration official is speaking.

Let’s assume it’s the last one and the ultimate goal is to get countries to lower tariff rates on U.S. products. How would countries know that? They hear mixed messages from the Trump administration and see contradictory actions. For example, Canada and Mexico have a free trade agreement with the U.S. (the current iteration negotiated by Trump), and are still subject to threats by the U.S. If I am Japan or the EU looking at that, the lesson I learn is that even if I lower tariffs, I am not immune to threats. Thus, I have little incentive to take the action that the threat wants me to take. So, one of our “Cs”, communication, is clearly weak in the tariff policy.

What about the other 3? Perhaps you have seen the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) memes about Trump. He talks a big game with increased tariffs, but the deadline always gets pushed back another month or so. He is inconsistent in following through with his threats, an indication of a lack of commitment, which leads to a lack of credibility. Why would any country take significant actions to achieve some kind of deal with the U.S., when they Trump’s threats are not credible and he cannot be trusted? So, even if raising tariffs is a good idea (which it’s not), Trump’s implementation of the policy has been problematic, to put it lightly.

Let’s take a look at Trump’s policy toward Ukraine. Here, for the moment, the lack of credibility, consistency, commitment, and communication has resulted in a positive outcome. The problem with inconsistent diplomacy, like inconsistent parenting, is that even when it achieves good outcomes, they are unstable and likely not to last. But the good news first.

Trump has ordered a resumption of military aid to Ukraine after a short pause. As I hesitantly noted in the last one of these things, more and more he sees Putin as the obstacle to peace in Ukraine. Not only has he resumed aid but has floated the idea of greater aid going forward. Perhaps, we are at a turning point where Trump will offer more consistent support to Ukraine. But I’m not holding my breath.

The main reason is that I do not see any logic in Trump’s actions towards Ukraine and Russia. The 4 “Cs” are lacking. He has gone back and forth between talking about how great Putin is and Zelensky is an illegitimate leader, to now, where Zelensky is just defending his country and Putin is the problem. There is no consistency, commitment and hence, no credibility.

Other than a vague notion of peace, there is no clear communication about what needs to be done. What does Russia need to do? What does Ukraine need to do? The lack of clear communication about outcomes means any sort of real peace is unachievable.

Here we can zoom out a little and look at why it’s much worse in the Trump administration. Who ordered the pause in aid to Ukraine? Apparently, it was Secretary of Defense Hegseth, without Trump’s knowledge. If I am Ukraine, or Russia, I’m not sure if Trump can follow through with what he says, because he does not appear to have control over his administration. This is not the first time Hegseth went rogue or that a member of Trump’s administration has disagreed with him. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran’s nuclear program was not a threat and not imminent, days before the Trump administration bombed Iran. As mentioned above, there are conflicting justifications for the tariffs, depending on if its Secretary of Commerce Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Bessent or VP Vance.

Not only is Trump inconsistent and unclear, but so is the rest of his administration. This magnifies the problem and helps contribute to Trump’s chaotic foreign policy.

What are the consequences of all of this? Well, inconsistent parenting can result in a lack of trust, increased anxiety, and stress. The same is the result of Trump’s inconsistent diplomacy. Trust, the credibility of the U.S. will decrease as anxiety and stress will increase in the halls of government in Canada, Ukraine, Japan and South Korea. Decreased trust and increased anxiety without positive results. As the polling data shows, favorable views of the U.S. have decreased in all the countries surveyed.

Why is Trump’s foreign policy so inconsistent and unclear? I would argue it is because he has no motivating theory. Outside of vague notions of “America first” and “peace” he doesn’t really know what he wants to achieve. So, it comes down to how he is feeling in that moment, if he likes the other leader, and if he feels humiliated.

All of this is true not only of his foreign policy but domestic policy as well.

How do you fix this? You don’t. This is how Trump operates. I think Zelensky and Putin provide the handbook for how to deal with Trump if you’re a foreign leader. Do not take anything he says seriously or believe that he is acting out of conviction or belief. View everything as a transaction where you want to achieve temporary gains through flattery and appealing to Trump’s ego. That is the playbook for foreign countries.

This is not the playbook for domestic policy however, as law firms and universities have learned. But more on that another day.

Disclaimer-Analogies are always imperfect, and the parenting relationship is different in numerous ways than relationships between countries. First and foremost, hopefully parenting relationships are built on love, which is not really the case in relationships between countries. But, you know, it’s summer, so just roll with it.