Photo Via NATO
***
On January 20th, 2025, in Washington, D.C., the marble corridors of the State Department echoed with a sense of nostalgia. Seasoned diplomats, many of whom had served through multiple administrations, reminisced about the days when diplomacy was a meticulous craft, grounded in tradition and mutual respect. Their conversations harkened back to the early 20th century, a period that laid the foundation for modern diplomatic norms.
The 20th century witnessed the professionalization of diplomacy, marked by the establishment of embassies, the codification of international laws, and the creation of multilateral institutions like the United Nations. Diplomats were trained to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes with discretion, often working behind the scenes to prevent conflicts and foster alliances. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, was defused through backchannel communications and careful negotiation, exemplifying the era’s emphasis on measured dialogue.
During this time, diplomacy was not only about representing national interests but also about upholding international stability. Institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Trade Organization served as arenas for diplomatic engagement wherein issues could be debated. Through these organizations, compromises were reached, and peaceful solutions pursued. The rise of international law further formalized diplomatic conduct, ensuring that state interactions were bound by shared norms and principles. Examples of post-war diplomatic norms being set were the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and Consular Relations (1963). These treaties set in law the principles that now dictate modern diplomacy.
Diplomats of that era often relied on years of experience, cultural sensitivity, and subtle influence rather than public pronouncements. The balance of power during the Cold War demanded a steady hand, and diplomacy was often described as an art form — one that required restraint, discretion, and a deep understanding of global history and politics. Trust in diplomatic processes and institutions was central to maintaining global order.
Fast forward to the present, and the diplomatic landscape has undergone a seismic shift. U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s approach to foreign policy has been characterized by a marked departure from these established norms, favoring directness over discretion and personal rapport over institutional protocols. In his meetings with global leaders, such as the already infamous meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he often eschews traditional diplomatic channels. Instead of being discreet, Trump’s diplomacy favors high-profile summits, headline-making statements, and policy shifts announced via his social media platform, Truth Social.
Trump’s ostentatious style of diplomacy is typified in his engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Breaking from decades of U.S. policy, Trump met with Kim without preconditions, aiming to achieve denuclearization through personal diplomacy. These meetings marked an unprecedented moment in U.S.-North Korea relations and were widely covered by global media. While the initial encounters were historic, they drew criticism for lacking concrete outcomes. Many foreign policy experts noted that the meetings bypassed the rigorous preparation typically conducted by diplomats and analysts.
Critics also argued that these summits elevated Kim on the world stage without securing substantive commitments from North Korea. Despite hopeful rhetoric, little progress was made on denuclearization, and subsequent talks stalled. Nevertheless, the Trump administration touted the meetings as breakthroughs, emphasizing the novelty of personal engagement as a diplomatic tool.
Similarly, Trump’s handling of the NATO alliance has raised eyebrows among traditionalists. His public criticisms of member nations’ defense spending and suggestions of conditional support have challenged the alliance’s foundational principle of collective defense. Article 5 of the NATO treaty — the commitment to defend any member attacked — had long been considered inviolable. Trump’s rhetoric, however, introduced ambiguity into that commitment as the U.S. appears increasingly willing to shirk its NATO responsibilities.
His statements prompted concerns about the U.S.’s reliability as a partner and strained relationships with key allies. Some European leaders responded by increasing their defense budgets, while others began exploring alternative security arrangements that would lessen dependence on U.S. guarantees. For many within the diplomatic community, Trump’s approach threatens to unravel decades of alliance-building and mutual trust.
In the realm of trade, Trump’s imposition of tariffs on long-standing partners like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union marked a significant shift toward protectionism. These actions, often announced via Twitter or during press conferences, disrupted established economic relationships and introduced uncertainty into global markets. The administration justified the tariffs on national security grounds, invoking rarely used provisions of trade law.
These measures triggered retaliatory tariffs, strained economic ties, and led to prolonged trade disputes. The uncertainty created by this approach impacted industries across the globe, from agriculture to manufacturing. While some praised Trump’s efforts to prioritize American workers and address trade imbalances, others warned that the tactics undermined long-standing partnerships and the rules-based global trading system.
Moreover, Trump’s preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks has redefined the U.S.’s role on the world stage. By withdrawing from international accords such as the Paris Climate Agreement, his administration signaled a move toward unilateral decision-making and demonstrated a prioritization of short-term national interests over long-term collaborative efforts. The consensus-based approach that has underpinned U.S. diplomacy since World War II is increasingly becoming something of the past.
The decision to leave the Paris Agreement isolated the U.S. from nearly every other nation on the issue of climate policy. Environmental experts and diplomats expressed concern that the move not only hindered global climate efforts but also ceded leadership to other powers like China and the European Union.
These actions reflected a broader trend in Trump’s foreign policy. This new administration is characterized by a rejection of traditional diplomacy in favor of assertive, often unilateral decisions. While this approach resonated with segments of the American electorate who felt global institutions had failed to serve U.S. interests, it raised alarms among experts concerned about the erosion of international norms and the diminishing credibility of American commitments.
The communication style of the Trump administration plays a significant role in its departure from tradition vis-a-vis diplomacy. Social media has become a primary means of presidential communication, with policy shifts and international statements frequently posted on Twitter. Bypassing traditional channels of government vetting and coordination creates confusion among allies, adversaries, and even members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Public information is often transmitted directly from the President via social media with little or no review or approval process. Imagine a world in which George Washington could tweet to the early citizens of the United States. Even though he despised factions, imagine the divisions that would ensue. Our nation would be starkly different. A President should strive to maintain a good image, remain factual, and not intensify but mend divisions.
While supporters argue that Trump’s direct communication style brought transparency and authenticity to foreign policy, detractors highlight the risks of impulsivity and the marginalization of expert input. Diplomacy, traditionally a slow and deliberative process, is being transformed into a spectacle where perception often took precedence over substance.
Additionally, Trump’s emphasis on burden-sharing within NATO spurred some member states to reassess their defense spending. Nations are now aligning more closely with the alliance’s cooperative goals. His administration’s tough stance on China also brought greater attention to issues like intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices, and military expansion in the South China Sea.
Nonetheless, the long-term consequences of Trump-era diplomacy remain the subject of ongoing debate. When subsequent administrations attempt to restore traditional alliances and re-engage in multilateral diplomacy, they must grapple with the legacy of an approach that upended norms and tested the durability of international institutions.When comparing the history of diplomacy to its form in our modern world, the stark contrasts cannot go unnoticed. Contextualizing our current political era with respect to previous precedents allows us to see exactly how Trump is changing the way we communicate with other nations. The deliberative diplomacy of the 20th century and the assertive strategies of the Trump era reveal the broader transformation. Whether viewed as a necessary disruption or a dangerous deviation, Trump’s foreign policy has left an indelible mark on how the U.S. engages with the world. As global challenges continue to evolve — from climate change to cybersecurity to shifting power dynamics — the debate over the future of diplomacy is more relevant than ever. The question remains: can a balance be struck between innovation and tradition or between assertiveness and consensus in the complex theater of global affairs?
***
This article was edited by Isabel Adkins, Teagan Munafo, and Chapin Fish.
Ayden Suber 
Sara Starace 
Quinn Fuerst