Trump the Peacebuilder? Impacts of American Peace Efforts on Global Stability

Executive Summary:

• Renewed peacebuilding efforts by the Trump administration are deemed as unlikely to increase regional stability in their targeted areas.

• President Trump remains highly motivated by the desire to be perceived as a “dealmaker” by his domestic supporter base, and to secure concessions for his family’s business operations.

• Peacebuilding efforts remain predominantly informed by short-term political opportunism, and remain highly susceptible to being derailed by personal disagreements between leaders or shifts in the political preferences of domestic supporters.

• Conflicts such as those witnessed in Nagorno-Karabakh, Sudan, Yemen, and Myanmar, are assessed as unlikely to warrant American peacebuilding efforts due to their lack of perceived ability to generate US prestige or business concessions.

• Border regions between Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, and Russia and Ukraine all remain highly likely to witness violent clashes over the next several months, posing continued disruption to personal travel and corporate supply chains.

Quid Pro Quo: Peacebuilding in the Trump Era:

Over the past several months, the Trump administration has sought a leading role in facilitating peace processes across the world.  In an apparent contradiction to the President’s “America First” policy agenda, the White House has been quick to propose telephone meetings, in-person summits, and reconstruction plans to address a range of global conflicts. Such initiatives have generated limited optimism from the international community, some of whom cite this as evidence of a departure from the isolationism which has defined much of the Trump administration’s foreign policy. However, the results of Washington’s peacebuilding efforts have been decidedly mixed, with many having already shown critical vulnerabilities. Examining the motivating factors behind Trump’s peacebuilding efforts may help to better predict their likelihood of long-term success, and whether other initiatives may be launched in other regions over the coming months.

At its core, the Trump administration’s foreign policy has been driven by two guiding principles. The first: to present the United States as a country which ends rather than begins conflicts. One of the primary criticisms levied by President Trump against predecessor Joe Biden has been his involvement in foreign conflicts. Namely, the significant sums of defence aid provided to Ukraine and Israel were repeatedly framed as the misappropriation of American taxpayer dollars which could have been better spent on domestic affairs. However, instead of pursuing a strategy of total isolationism, Trump has instead used the proposal of peace deals as a tool to create political distance between himself and President Biden for his domestic audience. Partly amplifying his reputation as a “deal maker” from his real estate development years, this tactic has been primarily used to gain favour among domestic supporters rather than solidifying America’s long-term geostrategic power.

Secondly, peace efforts have been used as methods to secure financial or business concessions for the Trump family. Whilst the now infamous “Trump Gaza” casino proposal remains the most obvious example, Vietnam’s recent offer to develop a luxury golf course under the Trump brand in exchange for the removal of 46% tariffs demonstrates that business interests continue to play a significant role in informing Trump’s foreign policy objectives. Both economic and diplomatic incentives are often used interchangeably to extract concessions from foreign partners, who are increasingly reduced to the status of transactional business counterparts as opposed to values-based strategic allies.

However, the long-term viability of peace proposals suggested by the Trump administration often remain highly dependent on the president’s emotional state. Any scenarios in which the United States is perceived as having been deceived, strong-armed, or humiliated during negotiations typically provoke a negative public reaction from President Trump, often resulting in his withdrawal of support for further negotiations.

Case studies in Ukraine, Gaza, and Pakistan illustrate these dynamics clearly, and may indicate the Trump administration’s willingness to involve the United States in other peacebuilding efforts.  The extent to which these efforts succeed or fail will have significant impacts for international business operations, personal travel, and regional security, all of which remain highly susceptible to growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Russia-Ukraine:

President Trump has set a two-week deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to peace negotiations with Ukrainian counterparts, marking a notable deterioration in US-Russia relations. Since 25 May 2025, Trump has written multiple social media posts saying that Putin has gone "absolutely crazy" and is "playing with fire" after Russia intensified attacks against Ukraine. This escalation followed a 19 May 2025 phone call between Trump and Putin, after which Putin stated his willingness to work with Ukraine on a "memorandum on a possible future peace agreement". However, Putin’s rapid intensification of missile and drone strokes against Ukrainian targets suggests that this may have been a delaying tactic, in which of peace negotiations are suggested and subsequently stalled due to alleged breaches of protocol or failure to clarify terms.

Since February 2025, Trump has frequently softened his demands, shifting emphasis from an original call for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, to which only Ukraine agreed, to more recently demanding only a summit with Putin. Meanwhile, Putin has developed an increasingly maximalist list of demands following the White House’s reestablishment of diplomatic channels. These demands include requirements for Ukraine to cede territory not currently under Russian military control, and for the US to formally recognise Crimea as Russian territory.

Crucially, Trump’s failure to include Ukrainian delegates in negotiations means that these efforts are likely doomed to fail, especially given that clear red-line positions such as the secession of territory to Russia are being offered as possible concessions to Kremlin negotiators. Whilst mounting losses may necessitate long term recalculations, Kyiv likely prefers the continuation of military action to negotiated territorial losses. Meanwhile, Trump’s overwhelming desire to be seen as a peacemaker will likely return him to the negotiating table with Putin, irrespective of the conditions stipulated at Ukraine’s expense. This will likely push European nations such as France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom to fill the defence vacuum left by American forces, placing them at an increased risk of attacks from the Russian security services. This will almost certainly involve an escalation of the Kremlin’s “hybrid warfare” strategy, in which sabotage operations such as arson attacks, bombings, and cyber-attacks are perpetrated by low level operatives against strategic infrastructure, logistics, and government targets.

Israel-Gaza:

After initially pursuing a strategy aligned strongly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration has adapted towards an increasingly multilateral approach to pursuing peace in the Gaza Strip. On 26 February 2025, President Trump released an AI-generated video showing depictions of Trump and Netanyahu sunbathing, and the transformation of the Gaza Strip into a Riviera-style casino-resort complex labelled "Trump Gaza." The post came weeks after Trump suggested that the United States should take over the Gaza Strip and relocate Palestinians to unspecified third-country hosts: stances which echoed those advocated by far-right factions within Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

However, in recent weeks, Hamas announced the agreement of a "general framework" with the United States’ Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. This framework aims to facilitate a lasting ceasefire, a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, increased aid, and a transfer of power from Hamas to an independent Palestinian committee. The draft framework also calls for a 60-day pause in fighting, guarantees of serious negotiations leading to a long-term truce, and assurances that Israel will not resume hostilities after the release of hostages, as it did in March 2025. However, Israel has publicly rejected any such agreement, stating that it will only consider temporary pauses in fighting to facilitate the release of hostages.

Ultimately, Trump’s unwillingness to grant Israel carte blanche regarding military support is likely to stem from the shifting attitudes of his domestic support base. Extensive media coverage of deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza, which have been exacerbated dramatically by Israel’s recent imposition of an aid blockade, have caused many Americans to question their government’s role in providing military aid to Israel. This, combined with the increasingly maximalist aims and tactics used by the Netanyahu government, have significantly isolated Israel on the world stage. However, the Israel-Hamas conflict’s prominent role in American culture wars combined with the continued influence of the evangelical community within Trump’s domestic support base means that a full withdrawal of military support remains highly unlikely. As such, business operations throughout the Middle East remain highly susceptible to targeted attacks from pro-Palestine state and non-state actors. Whilst Trump’s recent bombardment of Houthi rebels may reduce the short-term threat of hijackings and missile attacks against ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb strait, fundamental political obstacles to peace between Hamas and Israel will likely inspire future military operations in the medium to long term.

India-Pakistan:

On 10 May 2025, President Trump announced that India and Pakistan had agreed to a "full and immediate ceasefire” following 4 days of cross-border clashes. Praising the role of American negotiators in brokering the ceasefire, the President stated that "I will work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir."

Pakistani officials welcomed President Trump’s proposal, explaining in a Foreign Ministry statement that “we appreciate President Trump's expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute - a longstanding issue that has serious implications for peace and security in South Asia and beyond." However, Indian counterparts have reiterated their long-standing opposition towards any third-party mediation regarding the Kashmir conflict, posing serious questions regarding the feasibility and longevity of current peace arrangements.

Despite the cessation of armed clashes, inflammatory rhetoric between the Indian and Pakistani governments has escalated in both frequency and intensity since the ceasefire agreement, suggesting that future hostilities could soon erupt once again. Specifically, US-brokered efforts have focussed primarily on using economic means to disincentive armed clashes rather than addressing fundamental issues such as boundary disputes or water rights. India’s growing economic power and geostrategic importance has granted Prime Minister Narendra Modi freer licence to operate using increasingly authoritarian practices, many of which are used to accommodate and promote Hindu nationalist sentiments. Meanwhile, the obscure dynamics between the Pakistani military and Kashmiri insurgent groups threaten to yield further attacks against Indian targets. Failure to address these underlying political tensions means that the risk of future conflict erupting in the Kashmir region remains high in the medium to long term, posing potential disruptions to business operations and risks to personal safety in India’s Punjab, Rajasthan, and Kashmir regions, and Pakistan’s Punjab, Sindh, and Jammu regions.

Looking Forward:

Washington’s proposals for Ukraine, Gaza, and Kashmir are assessed as unlikely to result in long-term peace given that Trump’s negotiating tactics typically prioritise parties deemed able to grant concessions rather than the comprehensive multilateral efforts which typically form the basis of lasting peace agreements. Moreover, conflicts which lack significant media coverage such as skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the Sudanese civil war, and Burmese civil war are unlikely to attract American peacebuilding efforts due to their lack of perceived relevance to either US prestige or ability to grant business concessions for the Trump family.

For businesses and individuals, peacebuilding efforts are assessed as unlikely to significantly increase the safety or reliability of international travel. Failure to secure peace in Ukraine will provide increasing space for Russian sabotage operations against European targets, posing increased risks for private companies and government offices.  Meanwhile, Israel, the Bab el-Mandeb strait, and Kashmir region all remain volatile flashpoints likely to witness future armed conflict over the next several months.

For further information on how these developments could impact your business operations, please contact gsoc@global-sa.co.uk.