The Republican Dealmaker Doctrine: Bilateral Negotiation vs. Multilateral Trade

A strategy of direct engagement

The Republican approach to foreign affairs, especially under the Trump administration, signals a decisive turn away from decades of consensus-driven globalism. In its place emerges a doctrine rooted in direct, transactional diplomacy. This model reflects a dealmaking ethos. It prioritizes bilateral negotiations over multilateral agreements, rejecting frameworks that, in the administration’s view, dilute American leverage in favor of global compromise. [1]

Recent announcements of sweeping tariffs have rattled markets. Barron’s described it as “the worst day in five years.” Yet beneath the volatility lies a strategic posture. While Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and trade advisor Peter Navarro framed these tariffs as ends in themselves, President Trump suggested a more dynamic intention. He noted that future actions would “depend” on how other countries respond, implying a calculated use of economic friction to set the terms of future negotiations. [2]

The dismantling strategy

This posture is not merely tactical. It reflects a structural shift in American trade policy. For decades, U.S. leadership championed expansive multilateral agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). These were designed to establish a rule-based global order. The Trump-era rejection of these institutions is not just political opportunism. It is a redefinition of how American power should operate: unencumbered by global consensus, and focused instead on leveraging asymmetries in direct relationships. [3]

The dismantling of multilateral structures is deliberate. By bypassing large trade pacts, the administration seeks to maximize control and flexibility. Bilateral deals offer simpler accountability mechanisms. They also enable more aggressive pursuit of national interests.

Leverage through disruption

Disruption has become a tool of strategy. By injecting uncertainty into global markets through tariffs, threats, or executive orders, the administration pressures other nations to act quickly and independently. “The first to negotiate will win,” said Eric Trump. This captures the administration’s zero-sum logic. [2]

The tactic fragments the field. Countries are discouraged from forming a unified front. Instead, they are drawn into a competitive race to secure favorable terms. In this framework, uncertainty is not a risk to be managed. It is a form of leverage.

The China exception

Most trading partners, from Europe to South Korea, have responded with restraint. They appear to be calculating that negotiation will produce better outcomes than retaliation. China, however, has taken a more assertive stance. It announced a 34 percent tariff on all U.S. goods in swift response. [2]

China is not just an exception. It is the centerpiece of the bilateral strategy. The administration sees the U.S.-China relationship as the proving ground for this doctrine. Unlike smaller nations, Beijing has both the economic weight and political will to push back. The administration’s willingness to escalate with China reflects its belief that decoupling or realignment, even if disruptive, is preferable to mutual dependence.

The anatomy of bilateral bargaining

Bilateralism offers distinct tactical advantages in this foreign policy model:

• Tailored demands that reflect each partner’s vulnerabilities
• Clear accountability when agreements are broken
• Faster negotiation timelines than consensus-building across blocs
• Prioritization of U.S. interests over global norms or cooperative goals [4]

However, bilateral deals can also be more fragile. They are subject to leadership changes, domestic politics, and changing power dynamics.

Market volatility as messaging

Volatility caused by tariffs is often interpreted as a policy failure. Under this doctrine, however, it plays another role. It communicates resolve. UBS analysts note that market corrections typically last 115 days. We are only 40 days into the current decline. [2] The administration seems prepared to absorb that disruption. This signals to negotiating partners that it will not back down under pressure.

Navigating toward equilibrium

Despite the instability, some analysts believe the market will adapt. Stifel’s Barry Bannister expects the S&P 500 to stabilize around 5,500 this quarter. [2] If that forecast proves accurate, it suggests that markets, like foreign governments, are adjusting to a new normal. That normal is defined by deal-based diplomacy backed by economic disruption.

The dealmaker’s gambit

Previous administrations often viewed market performance as a proxy for public confidence. This one does not. The willingness to allow stock declines signals a shift in policy priorities. Bargaining strength comes before investor reassurance. [3]

This approach aligns with the vision laid out in the National Security Strategy. It holds that the international system should be reshaped to serve American advantage, not the other way around. [4]

America First in practice

In practical terms, the “America First” strategy means acting unilaterally in the short term. The long-term goal is to build bilateral relationships that reflect a rebalanced global order. This is a sharp departure from the post-WWII consensus. It reimagines American leadership as assertive and self-interested, not consensus-building or cooperative.

Looking ahead: the bilateral future

Turbulence is a feature of this doctrine, not a flaw. The key question is whether it will produce long-term gains. The administration is betting that bilateral agreements, even if slow and contentious, will deliver better outcomes than large, multilateral compromises.

For investors, policymakers, and international partners, understanding this shift is essential. The Republican strategy is more than a policy adjustment. It is a fundamental reengineering of how the United States engages with the global economy. The dealmaker’s doctrine is not just a tactic. It is the new template for American power.

---