How Trump’s diplomacy centers on loyalty tests
The February 28th Oval Office confrontation between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy wasn’t an isolated incident but part of a consistent pattern in American foreign policy that prioritizes personal loyalty over strategic interests. By examining verifiable diplomatic interactions since Trump returned to office, a troubling framework emerges that should concern Americans across the political spectrum.
The Zelenskyy Meeting: A Case Study in Loyalty Demands
The extraordinary Oval Office meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vice President Vance was captured on camera and transcribed by multiple news organizations. What makes this interaction so revealing isn’t just its unusual hostility, but how it exemplifies a diplomatic approach centered on personal fealty rather than national interests.
“Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting?” Vance demanded of Zelenskyy, while Trump insisted: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now.”
These weren’t spontaneous outbursts. They reflected a consistent theme in Trump’s international relations: the demand for personal gratitude and deference as a precondition for American support, regardless of strategic considerations.
The market reaction was immediate and measurable. The Cboe Volatility Index, Wall Street’s “fear gauge,” spiked to 22.40, its highest level since January 27. As investor Jim Lebenthal of Cerity Partners noted on CNBC: “If the policies in foreign affairs are now to empower Russia and Vladimir Putin, I don’t think that’s good for the stock market. I don’t think that’s good for the global economy.”
The Historical Pattern: Loyalty Over Strategy
Trump’s first administration established this pattern clearly. In 2018, he acknowledged prioritizing Saudi Arabia’s denials over his own intelligence agencies’ conclusions regarding Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, explicitly citing Saudi arms purchases as justification: “I don’t want to lose all of that investment being made into our country.”
His approach to NATO consistently emphasized financial transactions over alliance values, stating in 2018: “Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?”
This transactional framework has continued into his second term. In his February 15, 2025 meeting with French President Macron, Trump repeatedly emphasized that European allies must “pay their fair share,” with the transcript showing him interrupting Macron’s discussion of joint military cooperation to ask: “But have you sent the check yet?”
The Costs of Personalized Diplomacy
Foreign policy experts across the political spectrum have warned about the consequences of this approach. Richard Haass, who served in multiple Republican administrations and led the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in Foreign Affairs last December: “A truly ‘America First’ approach would prioritize our strategic interests and values, not reduce alliances to protection rackets or transform diplomacy into a series of personal loyalty tests.”
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who served under Trump, cautioned in his 2019 resignation letter: “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.”
The measurable impact of this personalized diplomacy is becoming apparent. The Pew Research Center’s 2024 global survey found American favorability among allies had already declined by an average of 13 percentage points in the months following the 2024 election, with respondents specifically citing concerns about reliability and alliance commitments.
The View from Abroad
Foreign officials have been increasingly direct about their concerns. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, following his January meeting with Trump, told reporters: “Alliances are built on mutual interests and values, not on personal relationships between leaders.”
Japanese Prime Minister Kishida expressed similar sentiments after his December phone call with then President-elect Trump, emphasizing in subsequent remarks to Japan’s Diet that the U.S.-Japan alliance “must remain grounded in shared strategic objectives rather than transactional considerations.”
Even British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, representing America’s closest ally, noted in his BBC interview last month: “There’s a fundamental difference between conducting foreign policy based on strategic national interests versus conducting it based on personal relationships and grievances.”
The National Security Implications
The consequences extend beyond diplomatic awkwardness to concrete national security concerns. Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, observed in his recent Atlantic article: “When allies view their relationship with the United States as contingent on personal loyalty to an individual rather than on treaty commitments, they naturally begin to hedge their bets and explore alternative security arrangements.”
This dynamic is already visible. Since January, both the Philippines and Germany have initiated expanded security dialogues with regional partners, explicitly citing the need for “reliability in security frameworks” beyond U.S. guarantees.
Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under both Bush and Obama, expressed concern in his February Council on Foreign Relations address: “Our greatest strategic advantage has always been our alliance network. When we transform these relationships from institutional commitments to personal loyalty tests, we sacrifice long-term strategic advantage for short-term emotional satisfaction.”
Beyond Partisanship: The Stakes for American Leadership
This isn’t about policy disagreements or partisan politics. Previous presidents from both parties maintained institutional approaches to alliance management despite personal differences with foreign leaders. Reagan worked productively with Thatcher despite disagreements on specific policies; Obama maintained alliance frameworks with Merkel through policy disputes; and Bush collaborated with Blair despite differences on various issues.
What distinguishes the current approach is the elevation of personal grievance and loyalty above institutional relationships. When Trump told Zelenskyy, “Your country is in big trouble,” and insisted Ukraine should be more grateful, he wasn’t articulating a strategic position but a personal one.
The effectiveness of American leadership has never depended on whether foreign leaders sufficiently praise our president. It has depended on whether our commitments are viewed as reliable and our strategic vision as sound.
As we move forward, the critical question isn’t whether allies express sufficient gratitude or personal loyalty to our president. The question is whether America can sustain its leadership role when its diplomacy increasingly resembles personal grievance settlement rather than strategic statecraft.
Morgan Treadwell and Taylor Veritatis are the founding editors of Beyond the Spectacle, an independent platform examining governance patterns and their implications for democratic institutions.
Join the conversation
Democracy requires an informed citizenry. Subscribe to receive our latest analysis and join a community of readers committed to understanding what lies beyond the spectacle.
