When we talk about foreign policy, most people expect a mix of strategy, foresight, and consistency. That is not what we get with Donald Trump. His approach to the world is far harder to pin down. Sometimes it looks like tough bargaining. Sometimes it looks like impulsive posturing. Often, it feels like he is making it up as he goes along.

The man himself has admitted that he trusts his instincts over process. That is unusual enough in business, but when the world’s most powerful country conducts diplomacy in bursts of gut feeling and social media announcements, the risks multiply. For allies, adversaries, and even his own senior officials, it can feel like a guessing game.

So, how do we make sense of a foreign policy that resists the label of “policy” in the first place? Let’s break it down.

Social Media as a Diplomatic Weapon

The most striking shift under Trump is his use of Truth Social to announce major decisions. In theory, this gives him a direct line to the public. In practice, it means allies and adversaries alike discover US positions through unpredictable posts.

Foreign policy usually involves months of quiet negotiations, delicate balancing, and carefully worded statements. Trump short-circuits all of that with a single post. The result is speed without substance. His own team often scrambles to catch up, leaving diplomats and negotiators unsure whether they are implementing a thought-out policy or just reacting to a late-night declaration.

The Instinct to “Win” at All Costs

Trump frames global relationships as zero-sum competitions. For him, it is about winning deals, not building partnerships. That mindset filters into everything, trade agreements, defense ties, and even peace talks.

The problem with this approach is that foreign policy is not real estate. You cannot treat allies like tenants and adversaries like bidders. International relations demand nuance, but Trump reduces them to simple transactions where one side must clearly lose for the other to win. This strong-arm style plays well to a domestic audience but undermines the trust of partners who expect cooperation, not constant confrontation.

Trump’s Misconceptions About Power

Another theme is his belief that America’s power is so overwhelming it can set the rules for everyone else. If other nations refuse to comply, he assumes the threat of punishment will bend them into submission.

This explains why his outreach often comes with a sting. He can talk about peace one moment and issue threats the next. It is the mentality of a boss in a boardroom, not a statesman on the world stage. The danger is that when you treat every relationship as a show of dominance, even your allies eventually grow wary.

India as the “Tariff King”

No relationship shows Trump’s contradictions more clearly than the one with India. On one hand, he has praised India’s rise and its role as a partner in the Indo-Pacific. On the other, he has repeatedly mocked it as a tariff king, using the phrase almost as a taunt.

His refusal to accept an interim trade deal that negotiators on both sides had worked out is a case in point. The deal was not dramatic enough for him to present as a one-sided victory, so he walked away. Unlike the EU, Japan, or Gulf countries, India did not offer to buy billions worth of US gas or weapons to appease him. For Trump, that was reason enough to turn cooperative talks into confrontational rhetoric.

The Tariff War With India

Trump went further by slapping a 50 percent tariff on India. The stated reason was India’s purchase of Russian oil and defense equipment. In reality, it was also about pushing India to open its agriculture and dairy sectors — a move that would have pleased US farmers but undermined Indian livelihoods.

Here is the contradiction. Trump wanted to punish India for buying Russian oil, but at the same time, he was himself exploring economic and strategic engagement with Russia. He wanted India to feel the pressure, while sparing bigger buyers like China, the EU, and Turkey. Even the US itself was quietly importing refined petroleum products made from Russian crude, some of them processed in India. The logic falls apart under scrutiny.

Engaging Russia While Sanctioning India

This is where the contradictions turn almost absurd. Trump sanctioned India for maintaining ties with Russia, while he himself pursued conversations with Putin on nuclear disarmament, Arctic cooperation, and energy deals. Russian officials publicly discussed areas where US and Russian companies could work together again, including oil. Exxon, which had reluctantly pulled out of Sakhalin, showed interest in returning.

If the US President is negotiating with Moscow, why penalize New Delhi for doing the same? The inconsistency suggests that Trump’s actions are not guided by a coherent principle, but by short-term theatrics designed to show toughness.

Selective Outrage Against Buyers of Russian Oil

India is not even Russia’s biggest energy customer. China holds that position, followed by the EU and Turkey. Yet none of these were slapped with punitive tariffs by Trump. The double standard is obvious.

What this really means is that India was singled out not because of its oil trade, but because it did not play along with Trump’s transactional expectations. It did not pledge massive purchases of US energy or defense equipment in return. It did not feed his image of being the ultimate dealmaker. So India became a convenient target.

The Rhetoric of Trump’s Inner Circle

Adding to the noise, members of Trump’s team amplified the pressure on India. Some accused Indian companies of profiteering by refining discounted Russian oil and selling it abroad. Others went as far as to say that India’s actions made it complicit in Ukraine’s suffering.

The exaggeration reached the point where the Ukraine war was branded “Modi’s war” by certain advisers. The claim that peace runs through New Delhi sounds dramatic, but it ignores the much larger role of Europe, China, and the US itself in the conflict. This rhetoric damaged trust further, portraying India as a scapegoat rather than a partner.

Who Really Profits From War?

If profiteering is the accusation, it is worth asking who has actually made the largest gains from the Ukraine conflict. The answer is American defense companies. Arms sales to Europe have skyrocketed, with billions approved for transfer to Ukraine. The US also benefits from exporting LNG to Europe after the Nord Stream pipeline was destroyed, locking European buyers into American energy for years.

Compared to this, India’s refining and resale of Russian crude is a minor footnote. The narrative that India is profiteering while the US arms industry posts record profits is not only misleading but hypocritical.

The “Dealmaker” Mentality in Foreign Affairs

At the core of Trump’s foreign policy is his identity as a self-styled dealmaker. He believes tough bargaining, brinkmanship, and chest-thumping will eventually yield results. In real estate, that might work. In global politics, the outcomes are messier.

Nations do not simply shake hands after being browbeaten. Long-term relationships are built on trust, mutual benefit, and predictability. When you reduce everything to a one-off transaction, partners lose faith in your consistency. India, for one, has little reason to believe that agreements with Trump will be respected if he decides later that the “deal” no longer flatters him.

India’s Response and Strategic Recalibration

Faced with this volatility, India will inevitably rethink the nature of its relationship with the US. That does not mean breaking ties, the two countries are too intertwined in trade, services, technology, and security. But it does mean adjusting expectations.

India is increasingly self-reliant in defense production, innovation, and technology. Its global partnerships are widening through forums like BRICS and the SCO. When the US shows itself to be unreliable, India has the option of deepening other alliances. That sends a message: coercion does not work on a country that values strategic autonomy.

The SCO and the China Factor

Modi’s attendance at the SCO summit in China is one example of India signaling that it has alternatives. While the visit should not be overstated, it was not a bilateral with Beijing, it nonetheless conveyed a message. If Washington chooses pressure over partnership, India has room to maneuver with others, including China and Russia.

The symbolism is powerful. Biden’s policies pushed Russia closer to China. Trump’s missteps risk pushing India closer as well. That would strengthen the very BRICS coalition the US is trying to counter in the global balance of power.

The Long-Term Consequences

Foreign policy is not about single moves. It is about the credibility you build over years. Trump’s contradictions risk eroding that credibility. By treating allies like adversaries and adversaries like bargaining chips, he undermines the trust that gives America influence.

India will not abandon its partnership with the US. The ties are too valuable. But it will hedge its bets, deepen ties with other powers, and insist on a more equal relationship. The age when Washington could dictate terms is fading, and Trump’s heavy-handed tactics only accelerate that shift.

What This All Means

The contradictions in Trump’s foreign policy are not random accidents. They stem from a worldview that sees power as transactional, relationships as temporary, and diplomacy as a stage for personal wins. It makes for dramatic headlines, but it is not sustainable.

For India, the lesson is clear. Trust must be built with caution, and resilience must come from within. For the US, the challenge is whether it can recognize that bullying and inconsistency weaken its hand, even when it appears strong in the moment.

Here’s the bottom line. Foreign policy is not a real estate deal. You cannot bulldoze your way to lasting partnerships. You have to build them brick by brick, with patience, respect, and consistency. And that is something Trump’s style has yet to deliver.

Read More: What India Can Learn from the World’s Best Prisons?