At a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28, 2025, the United States President Donald Trump, seemingly dismissing Zelenskyy in front of the media, articulated his hope to be remembered as a peacemaker.
“I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker … I’m doing this to save lives more than anything else… Thank you, Brian, for that question. It was a nice question,” Trump remarked to Brian Glenn, a correspondent from the far-right cable network Real America’s Voice. Some reports suggest that Glenn’s question may have been prearranged. He asked Trump, in the presence of Zelenskyy and American Vice President JD Vance, “Mr. President, do you think ultimately your legacy will be the peacemaker and not the president that led this country into another war?”
Interestingly, Trump’s reply mirrors sentiments from his inaugural address, where he expressed a desire to be both a “peacemaker and unifier.” However, one must question the authenticity of his self-proclaimed peacemaker role, especially when considering his recent actions and policies, as well as his presidency from 2017 to 2021. Notably, Trump seeks to be seen as a peacemaker while also advocating for significant defense spending. In his second inaugural address on January 20, 2025, he stated his goal to “build the strongest military the world has ever seen.” To truly assess the credibility of President Trump’s claims, one must examine not only his recent actions but also his entire first term in office.
During his first term as President, Trump’s efforts to promote peace were marked by considerable flaws. His policies frequently escalated tensions with Iran, pushing the region perilously close to conflict. Additionally, his stance seemed to hinder the possibility of Palestinian statehood, further complicating the already delicate Israeli-Palestinian situation. Critics argued that his approach diminished the United States’ standing as a leader in global peace efforts, casting doubt on the effectiveness of his diplomatic legacy. Nevertheless, he did exhibit some strengths in diplomacy by engaging with long-time adversaries such as North Korea and the Taliban, challenging conventional diplomatic norms.
Also read: Month-old Trump’s unilateralism sends ripples across the globe
The debate surrounding his reputation as a peacemaker is intense, as his achievements in the Middle East are often eclipsed by rising tensions elsewhere. His withdrawal from key agreements and international organizations raised alarms about the sustainability of his peace efforts. Ultimately, his foreign policy seemed to prioritise American interests over global stability, positioning him more as a disruptor than a traditional peacemaker.
Trump’s presidency from 2017 to 2021 was characterised by a blend of audacious diplomatic moves and contentious decisions regarding global conflict resolution. While he portrayed himself as a dealmaker intent on reducing U.S. military engagement, his methods for achieving peace were frequently unconventional and led to significant divisions, focusing more on immediate results than on enduring solutions to conflicts.
Given the above, it is essential to examine the contentious choices made by Trump that undermined peace initiatives during his initial presidential term.
In 2018, Trump made a pivotal decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), claiming that the agreement was insufficient and did not adequately address Iran’s aggressive actions in the region. This withdrawal reignited hostilities with Iran, leading to missile strikes and an increase in proxy conflicts. Consequently, Iran resumed its nuclear enrichment, further destabilizing the area. This action also weakened the United States’ credibility and reliability on the global stage, casting doubt on its commitment to multilateral agreements.
Trump’s 2018 decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem was another significant shift in diplomatic policy, officially recognizing the city as Israel’s capital. This action triggered widespread protests and unrest in Palestine and among the Muslim community, intensifying existing tensions. It also sidelined Palestinian leaders in ongoing peace talks, further straining Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Moreover, Trump’s “America First” strategy led to a notable decline in U.S. participation in international peacekeeping organizations. His withdrawal from critical agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization hampered global cooperation. Additionally, this approach strained relationships within NATO, creating friction with traditional allies. As a result, the U.S. found its ability to mediate in significant global conflicts, such as those in Syria and Ukraine, significantly diminished.
Besides, Trump’s first inauguration also marked some important diplomatic engagements and conflict mediation. The Abraham Accords emerged as a defining moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy, officially signed in 2020 and involving key players like Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements signified a crucial shift in the geopolitical dynamics of the region, fostering normalized relations that had previously seemed unattainable.
The accords led to a reduction in hostilities between Israel and certain Arab states, promoting economic cooperation and security partnerships while laying the groundwork for future diplomatic efforts.
Nonetheless, they attracted criticism for neglecting the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving its resolution unresolved. Critics contended that the accords appeared more transactional, with the U.S. providing military support and political concessions, such as recognizing Morocco’s claim over Western Sahara, without addressing the deeper regional tensions, particularly those related to Iran.
The diplomatic landscape between the United States and North Korea underwent a dramatic shift during Trump’s administration, as he made history by becoming the first sitting U.S. president to meet face-to-face with Kim Jong-un. The landmark summits in Singapore in 2018 and Hanoi in 2019 were pivotal moments aimed at promoting denuclearization and achieving enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.
While these unprecedented interactions led to some immediate benefits, such as reducing the risks of military conflict and establishing a direct communication channel with North Korea, detractors highlighted the absence of concrete advancements in denuclearization, as North Korea persisted in its weapons development. The Hanoi summit Hanoi summit ultimately collapsed, largely due to unrealistic expectations from the U.S. and North Korea’s unwavering position, prompting many to contend that Trump’s diplomatic overtures inadvertently granted legitimacy to a repressive regime without securing any meaningful long-term agreements.
The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, often characterized as the end of a “Forever War,” was largely shaped by the Doha Agreement brokered by Trump in 2020 with the Taliban, which set the stage for the departure of American troops from the country.
This agreement marked a significant turning point, indicating the winding down of the United States’ longest military involvement and contributing to a marked reduction in American military fatalities. Nevertheless, it drew considerable criticism for being rushed and overly favorable to the Taliban, lacking effective enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, the absence of the Afghan government from the discussions weakened its position against the Taliban, ultimately leading to increased instability that paved the way for the group’s resurgence in 2021.
Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker is a subject of considerable debate, with his achievements in the Middle East often overshadowed by escalating tensions in other regions. His decision to withdraw from significant agreements and international organizations raises doubts about the long-term viability of his peace initiatives. Ultimately, his foreign policy seemed to prioritize American interests over global stability, positioning him more as a disruptor than a conventional peacemaker.
This time too after his second inauguration, in a notable meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy on February 28, 2025, discussions regarding a minerals deal intended to pave the way for a ceasefire with Russia took a sharp turn for the worse. Trump accused Zelenskyy of “gambling with world war three,” which significantly heightened tensions. Following this incident, a coalition of international leaders expressed their support for Ukraine, condemning Trump’s remarks and reaffirming their commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty.
Later, during a congressional address, Trump attempted to defend his stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, emphasizing the necessity of dialogue with both sides to find a resolution. He pointed to a letter from Zelenskyy that showed a willingness to negotiate, while simultaneously critiquing what he perceived as Zelenskyy’s failure to recognize the support provided by the United States. Nevertheless, the collapse of negotiations with Ukraine and the ensuing international criticism highlight the difficulties inherent in his peacemaking strategy. As of March 2025, Trump’s administration has begun to reshape the U.S. approach to foreign relations with Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin, aiming to recalibrate the dynamics between the two nations and address ongoing geopolitical challenges. U.S. foreign policy advisers have initiated direct talks with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia, indicating a potential reconfiguration of U.S.-Russia relations.
The Trump administration has made significant changes to its foreign policy by halting intelligence sharing with Ukraine and reducing military aid, which has placed increased pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to engage in peace negotiations with Russia. This shift has raised concerns about Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself amid ongoing Russian aggression.
The reactions to these policy changes have been varied both at home and abroad. Detractors contend that diminishing support for Ukraine threatens democratic principles and encourages further Russian hostility, while proponents argue that fostering dialogue with Russia could yield strategic benefits in the context of countering China’s influence. They suggest that the administration’s efforts to mend ties with Russia are part of a larger strategy aimed at exploiting the existing rift between Russia and China, potentially undermining their partnership and reinforcing U.S. interests on the global stage. This leads to the question of whether Trump can negotiate peace with China. During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Trump’s approach to China was largely confrontational, focusing on trade disputes, military rivalry, and ideological differences. He initiated a trade war, imposing tariffs on a vast array of Chinese goods worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Although the two countries reached a “Phase One” trade agreement in January 2020, which included commitments from China to purchase more American agricultural products in exchange for some tariff reductions, it did not resolve the underlying structural issues. The relationship soured further due to accusations related to COVID-19, human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and military tensions, leaving a legacy of unresolved conflicts as the Biden administration took over.
As of March 2025, the Trump administration has taken a notably aggressive stance towards China, characterized by intensified economic strategies and tactical initiatives. Only yesterday (March 5, 2025) the US Department of Justice revealed indictments against Zhou Shuai and Yin Kecheng, along with eight employees from i-Soon, a Chinese tech firm, and two officials from China’s Ministry of Public Security, all facing various hacking-related charges. In a related effort, the ‘Diplomatic Security Service’s Rewards for Justice Program’ offered up to $10 million for any information regarding i-Soon, its staff, and the MPS officials involved in the cyber activities outlined in the indictments. Additionally, the United States enacted sanctions against Zhou Shuai, a Shanghai-based data broker, as well as his company, Shanghai Heiying Information Technology Company, for unlawfully obtaining, brokering, and selling data from critical US infrastructure sectors, including defence, communications, health, and government. TUS Department of State has offered rewards of up to $2 million each under the ‘Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program’ for information that leads to the arrest or conviction of Zhou Shuai and Yin Kecheng.
Moreover, in February 2025, President Trump enacted executive orders that introduced a 10% tariff on all imports from China, aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit while promoting domestic manufacturing. This decision has escalated trade tensions, prompting China to retaliate with additional tariffs on American agricultural exports. Furthermore, the administration is set to issue an executive order aimed at strengthening the U.S. shipbuilding industry to challenge China’s dominance in global shipping. This initiative will include imposing fees on imports carried by Chinese ships and offering tax incentives to boost domestic shipbuilding. Moreover, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has stated that the country is “prepared” for potential conflict with China, underscoring the administration’s resolve to tackle the escalating tensions arising from these economic strategies.
A major source of friction between China and the United States has been the situation surrounding Taiwan. As of March 2025, the Trump administration has taken a transactional stance on Taiwan, focusing heavily on defense budgets and economic implications. In an effort to enhance Taiwan’s defense capabilities against possible threats from China, Trump has recommended a significant increase in Taiwan’s defense spending, suggesting it rise from the current 2.5% to as high as 10% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This move is intended to empower Taiwan to better protect itself. Furthermore, the administration is considering a shift from direct military assistance to arms sales, which would encourage Taiwan to take on a larger share of its defense responsibilities. This approach is part of a broader strategy to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas while ensuring that allies remain well-equipped. Additionally, President Trump has proposed repealing the CHIPS Act, a bipartisan effort aimed at enhancing U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, advocating for tariffs instead of subsidies to achieve similar outcomes. This suggestion has raised alarms about its potential effects on funding for semiconductor initiatives, particularly those involving Taiwanese firms like TSMC.
China views President Donald Trump’s stance on the Taiwan issue as a significant challenge to its sovereignty and regional stability, prompting a range of assertive responses from Beijing. The Chinese government has expressed strong disapproval of recent changes in U.S. policy towards Taiwan, particularly criticizing the removal of language that previously opposed Taiwan’s independence from official documents. In reaction, China has intensified its military presence near Taiwan, conducting exercises that demonstrate its willingness to use force to assert its claims over the island, which it perceives as a direct response to what it interprets as growing U.S. support for Taiwan. Chinese officials have issued firm warnings, emphasizing their determination to protect national interests and signaling their readiness to counter any actions that threaten China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.
In light of this, analyzing key foreign policy decisions, their consequences, and the broader implications for global stability raises questions about the effectiveness and authenticity of this commitment. Whether Trump truly aims to be remembered as a peacemaker is subjective and depends on individual interpretations of these intricate events. While he has publicly declared his intention to be a “peacemaker,” it is essential for him to substantiate these claims through tangible actions that reflect genuine efforts toward peace.
