Trump’s Commercial Revolution Is Rewriting the Rules of American Foreign Policy. After four years of Biden sleepwalking through history, Trump stormed back into the spotlight.
While the media remains fixated on palace intrigue and personality clashes in Washington, a seismic shift in American foreign policy is unfolding largely unnoticed. President Trump has deployed what can only be described as “commercial diplomacy” — a radical departure from decades of diplomatic orthodoxy that replaces ideological commitments with business transactions as the cornerstone of international relations.
The numbers tell a stunning story. Saudi Arabia: a $600 billion investment package anchored by $142 billion in military procurement. Qatar: $243 billion in deals, including a $96 billion Boeing order. The United Arab Emirates: $14.5 billion in aircraft purchases plus a major AI data center commitment. These aren’t just trade agreements; they represent a wholesale reimagining of how America engages with the world.
The Deal-Making Doctrine
Trump’s approach rests on three pillars that would make traditional diplomats blanch.
First, he has replaced dogma with deal-making. The most jarring example came with his decision to lift all sanctions on Syria — a move that would have been unthinkable under any previous administration, Republican or Democratic. The rationale? Commercial opportunity and regional stability. It’s disruption by design, with enormous geopolitical stakes.
Second, Trump has staffed key positions not with career diplomats but with business titans. Howard Lutnick and Steven Witkoff bring to the negotiating table something Foreign Service officers typically lack: decades of high-stakes dealmaking experience. They think like CEOs, not ambassadors. Foreign counterparts, accustomed to the careful choreography of traditional diplomacy, find themselves outmaneuvered in negotiations where profit margins matter more than protocol.
Third, and perhaps most controversially, Trump has shown a willingness to engage problematic partners when the economics make sense. His overture to Pakistan — floating a zero-tariff trade deal despite the country hosting 15 U.S.-recognized terrorist groups — sent shockwaves through the diplomatic establishment. His working trade deal with China, America’s chief strategic competitor, follows the same logic: even rivals can be partners when mutual profit is on the table.
High Stakes, Higher Risks
This commercial-first approach carries undeniable risks. By prioritizing economic gain over security concerns, the administration may be empowering problematic regimes and overlooking long-term strategic threats. Traditional allies, built on shared values rather than shared profits, may feel alienated. And there’s the fundamental question of whether short-term deals can provide the foundation for lasting stability.
Yet the potential advantages are significant. This approach promises to drive job creation and economic growth at home while expanding America’s partnership network beyond the constraints of ideology. It allows for rapid adaptation to global changes and could enhance American leverage in regions where rivals like China have gained ground through their own economic statecraft.
A Philosophical Revolution
What most observers miss is that commercial diplomacy isn’t merely a tactical adjustment — it’s a philosophical revolution. It represents a fundamental shift from prioritizing principles to pursuing prosperity, from spreading democracy to striking deals. In Trump’s worldview, the ledger book has replaced the diplomatic cable as the primary instrument of American power.
The real test lies in implementation. Can these massive deals actually be executed? Will commercial gains translate into lasting security benefits? Can America maintain its global leadership through business ties alone, or will the absence of shared values ultimately undermine these transactional relationships?
Trump’s commercial diplomacy has shattered the post-World War II consensus that guided American foreign policy through the Cold War and beyond. By elevating business interests above democratic values and strategic alliances, he promises both prosperity and renewed American influence. The response from potential partners has been enthusiastic — witness the open checkbooks and warm welcomes in capitals from Riyadh to Islamabad.
Whether this represents diplomatic genius or dangerous shortsightedness remains to be seen. Critics will argue that abandoning America’s role as a champion of democratic values diminishes both our moral authority and our long-term security. Supporters will counter that pragmatic deal-making delivers tangible benefits that decades of idealistic foreign policy failed to achieve.
But one thing is certain: The old rules of American diplomacy have been not just bent but shattered. For better or worse, we are witnessing the birth of a radically different approach to America’s role in the world — one where the bottom line matters more than the party line, and where profitable partnerships trump principled stands.
The world is watching, checkbook in hand, to see what comes next.
This mill most likely split this country even further apart. There has to be an even approach to this countries issues . We definitely should bring manufacturing jobs back however that means work force adjustments. You cant expect to pay less but want to to be payed more . Also sending tax money to other countries when this country needs it for medical, Social Security, housing . Why are we having products manufactured in countries we know use slave labor , have no interest in pollution . We have plenty of people who can and should be willing and wanting job opportunities however this country has been too soft regarding requirements for acquiring government assistance. Programs should be available however recipients if able would be required to enter into the work force once deemed able to function which may include educating or re training , detoxification if necessary. If American s want to be a strong successful nation then it needs to have a stronger unity . Concessions from everyone will be needed.
If I remember correctly, although it is quite possible that this history has been changed since then so that it says something different today to make people feel good about themselves and all warm and squishy inside, John Fitzgerald Kennedy also chose to be in charge of his foreign policy, which would make Trump not the first. but the second American president to do so.l
Bob says @ May 26, 2025 at 12:18 pm: Why are we having products manufactured in countries we know use slave labor, have no interest in pollution.
ME: First of all, it is not “we” who are having products manufactured in countries we know use slave labor, have no interest in pollution.
If anybody is having products manufactured in countries we know use slave labor, have no interest in pollution, it would have to be some corporate or other business entity.
As to why?
Profits, Bob!
And the same thing was going on back before WWII when American business people like George Herbet Walker and Cooter Bush were investing in Hitler’s Third Reich, where they were using slave labor.
Big money to be made there.
Did you not learn in high school, Bob, that a significant number of American corporations maintained or established business relationships with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, even after the Nazi regime’s true nature became increasingly clear.
Germany’s rapidly expanding economy and rearmament program presented attractive investment opportunities for American businesses, especially during the Great Depression.
Many American companies, including Ford, General Motors, IBM, Standard Oil, and others, already had subsidiaries or established business ties in Germany before the rise of the Nazi regime.
These companies often faced a difficult choice: either disengage from the German market and potentially lose significant investments, or continue doing business and potentially profit from the economic activity under the Nazi regime.
Some companies had long-standing business relationships with German firms that continued even after the Nazi rise to power.
For example, Standard Oil’s collaboration with IG Farben involved complex agreements and joint ventures that continued until the U.S. entered the war.
Terminating these contracts and disengaging from the German market could have resulted in significant financial losses and legal complications.
While there was growing awareness of Nazi Germany’s antisemitism and human rights abuses, the full extent of the regime’s atrocities was not widely known or understood in the early years.
Some companies might have underestimated the moral implications of doing business with Nazi Germany, prioritizing profits over ethical considerations.
Notably, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, was a known antisemite who expressed admiration for Hitler and even received a Nazi honor.
This ideological alignment might have influenced Ford’s decision to continue and even expand Ford’s operations in Nazi Germany.
American business engagement with Nazi Germany was driven by a combination of economic factors, existing business ties, limited awareness of the regime’s atrocities, and in some cases, ideological sympathies.
It’s crucial to understand this complex historical context when analyzing American corporate involvement in Nazi Germany during this period.
And did you know, Bob, that in 1938, Adolph Hitler was Time magazine’s Man of the Year?
As to Trump’s method of conducting foreign policy from the driver’s seat, so to speak, I think like with every other president going back to George Washington, whose name we are not supposed to mention in polite company today, the means or methods they exercise or employ are both a function of their personalities and the times they believe they are confronted with, such as LBJ with the raggedy-ass. fourth-rate little country called Viet Nam.
As to Trump’s very unique personality as compared to the likes of a Joe Biden, and as a consequence, what I think of as his very direct approach to negotiations by beating his opponent to the ground right off, so as to establish the necessary hierarchy as to who really holds the power, which of course, is always Trump, I can think of no other better visual of it as we see in this Youtube video titled “The Battle of the Billionaires takes place at WrestleMania 23” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE at .56 where we see Trump’s negotiating style in action.
Which is exactly why all these other world leaders are so afraid of Trump, who as can clearly be seen in that video is a big man who is terribly fast and who doesn’t mind taking his opponent down to the ground while wearing a tuxedo.
Can anyone picture Joe Biden moving like that?
Not hardly, is my thought, which is why nobody really ever respected Joe Biden, because mano a mano with Trump, regardless of old Joe’s bluster about taking Trump out behind the barn, it would be old Joe getting a taste of the floor in that video, and all the other world leaders who are afraid of Trump were well aware of that, as were the American people themselves, which is why Trump is president and Joe Biden is not.