It comes as no surprise that Trump has a way of going about getting what he wants that is extremely annoying and offensive to people. Even more so if you don't understand his method. Here's some clues about his methods. He calls himself a stable genius. Its been said he's playing 4-D Chess. Either way, what is clear is that there is a method to what many believe is his egomaniacal madness.
How He Starts Out
Once Trump sets his sights on a target, he feels out his competitor by releasing some off-handed remarks that can be taken as unserious. He's looking for reactions. The media and haters immediately go nuts.
Trump will start with a statement and a position that is basically outrageous. He knows there is no way that he is going to get what he puts out there. But he puts the other party on their back foot and causes them to respond in such a way that they will often come back with something that is still advantageous in terms of his ultimate objective.
Trump is willing to look like a bully and unreasonable. He doesn't mind totally pissing the other party off, let alone observers such as the media, politicians and the public.
My description captures one of the most consistent and well-documented aspects of Donald Trump's approach to negotiation, both in business and politics. He frequently employs a tactic known as extreme anchoring (or making an "outrageous" / "maximalist" opening bid), where he starts with a position that's deliberately bold, provocative, or seemingly unrealistic. This sets the psychological reference point (the "anchor") far in his favor, making any subsequent compromise appear reasonable by comparison—even if it's still advantageous to him.
This strategy is straight from his own playbook in The Art of the Deal (1987), where he describes aiming very high and pushing hard, often using exaggeration ("truthful hyperbole") to shift the frame of discussion. Numerous analyses and examples confirm this pattern:
Key Elements:
- Extreme Opening Position — Trump throws out demands that shock or provoke (e.g., offering ridiculously low bids in real estate deals, like $5 million for a $30 million plane, then settling higher but still favorably).
- Willingness to Provoke — He accepts looking unreasonable, bullying, or offensive, as it puts opponents on the defensive and forces reactions.
- Psychological Leverage — The outrage shifts the Overton window; concessions from the other side feel like victories, while Trump often gets closer to his true goal.
Real-World Examples:
Here are some well-cited instances that illustrate exactly what you're describing:
- Real Estate Deals — In The Art of the Deal, Trump recounts lowballing sellers aggressively to pull the final price toward his terms.
- Trade and Tariffs — He often threatened massive tariffs (e.g., 25% on imports from Mexico/Canada) or extreme actions to force concessions, then negotiated down to deals like the USMCA revisions, claiming wins.
- Geopolitical Gambits — Proposals like "buying" Greenland, annexing Canada as the 51st state, or reclaiming the Panama Canal have been floated as opening salvos to pressure allies on trade, security, or resources—sparking backlash but reframing talks around U.S. demands.
- NATO Defense Spending — Demanding 4-5% GDP (far above the 2% target) shocked allies, but it pushed many to increase spending, allowing Trump to claim credit for progress.
Why It Can Be Annoying and Offensive:
Trump's approach rubs many people the wrong way—especially those who prefer collaborative, interest-based, or diplomatic styles (think "Getting to Yes" principles). Critics argue it:
- Creates unnecessary chaos and resentment.
- Damages long-term relationships (e.g., allies feel bullied or disrespected).
- Risks escalation or backlash when opponents dig in or ignore the anchor over time.
- Can backfire if seen as bluffing or bad faith, leading to distrust.
- Some analyses note that while effective in one-off, high-leverage situations (like real estate or trade where power imbalances exist), it's less suited for sustained alliances or complex diplomacy, where trust and reciprocity matter more.
Leveraging Unpredictability
Trump's deliberate cultivation of unpredictability is a core extension of his negotiation style, and it's often explicitly linked to the classic "madman theory" — the idea (popularized by Nixon and Kissinger) that appearing irrational or volatile can make opponents fear escalation, prompting them to concede rather than call what might be a bluff.
This approach amplifies the initial "outrageous opening" tactic you described: by making it unclear whether extreme statements (e.g., buying Greenland, annexing Canada as the 51st state, or massive tariffs/military threats) are serious bluffs or genuine risks, Trump raises the stakes. Opponents hesitate to challenge him aggressively because his strong ego and history of following through on some threats (like targeted strikes or trade escalations) make it risky. This creates psychological pressure, forcing reactive concessions to avoid worst-case scenarios.
In essence, unpredictability supercharges the "annoying and offensive" initial posture by making the whole process feel chaotic and high-risk, which can force movement toward Trump's goals.
How It Plays Out in Practice:
- Short-Term Leverage — It disrupts opponents' planning. In trade talks (e.g., with South Korea or China), aides reportedly warned counterparts that "this crazy guy" might pull out anytime, yielding concessions. In foreign policy, sudden pivots (praise one day, threats the next) keep adversaries off-balance, as seen in North Korea rhetoric shifting from "fire and fury" to summits.
- Ego as Deterrent — His unwillingness to back down publicly reinforces the perception that bluffs could turn real, deterring direct challenges.
- Examples from Recent Context — Proposals like military/economic pressure on Venezuela, revived interest in Greenland/Panama Canal, or NATO spending demands shock allies and foes alike, reframing discussions around U.S. terms while opponents scramble.
Double-Edge Sword
Trump's style is a double-edged sword. It is powerful in one-off power plays, but corrosive for ongoing partnerships where reciprocity, reliability, and shared interests sustain cooperation. Many experts (across think tanks, academia, and even former officials) view it as trading long-term stability for short-term leverage — effective until opponents adapt, ignore, or counter by reducing dependence on the U.S. altogether.
In Conclusion
The United States and the world can't handle Trump for long. He has 3 years left in what will be his last term. That's probably the most anyone, even his supporters, can handle. Hopefully the world survives Trump. By the same token, as we all know, his objective is to "Make America Great Again." I'm confident that is happening thus far.
