Political realism in the era of Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s behaviour lies far outside the bounds of traditional political realism, making it challenging both to conduct and to interpret international politics and diplomacy in the era of Trump.

Political realism (or “realpolitik”) provides important reminders about the nature of politics, even to those of us who maintain its insufficiency as a sole analytical tool. Political realism reminds us that if we are to defend our values, including our democracies and the rule of law, we must accept the fact that politics is not just about defending values, but also about defending interests when they are attacked by others with equally strong and often hostile interests. We may even have to consider using means we would otherwise reject. Political realism represents a long tradition with roots at least as far back as the Greek historian Thucydides, and with many important political theorists and philosophers along the way, making it into one of our key avenues for understanding politics. It holds, most essentially, that power struggles are the most prominent feature of international relations.

How can we take aboard this key insight without sacrificing ethics? Arguably, we should strive to reconcile idealistic, values-based politics with the insights of more cynical realpolitik to achieve a well-functioning, unified whole. But that is not easy. Indeed, a pure realist would say that such a wedding of idealism and realism is well-nigh impossible: ultimately, a party’s own interests must and will take priority. Traditionally, however, political realism does require, even in its more cynical versions, a certain degree of predictability and rhetorical honesty, and these are most certainly ethical values. Political realism is in other words far from ethics- and value-free.

For example, when two or more parties meet (or fight each other) to resolve a conflict, we must assume that each will clearly express its own rational interests (or what it sees as its rational interests) – and each party can assume that the opposing party or parties will do the same. And when compromises are reached, we should be able to expect all parties to abide by them. Since we cannot always rely on this, we seek security guarantees and temporary solutions. But even if parties cannot always trust each other, they can at least know what interests the other party or parties are trying to defend and are using as the basis of their own policies.

This balance, which is infused with ethical expectations, breaks down when one party is an ideological dictator who ignores conventional risk assessments or reasonable national self-interest. In the 20th century, Adolf Hitler was the foremost example of such a dictator, a party with whom it was essentially impossible to negotiate.

Donald Trump represents another example of the same phenomenon. Of course, Trump is no Hitler, but his extreme concern about what other people say about him and what praise he receives makes him a challenging negotiator, to put it mildly. His opponents (or for that matter his allies) cannot follow the classic political-realism handbook, in which interests meet interests, and power meets power. Instead, it’s singularly important, if you want to win Trump’s favour, to say something that makes him happy. And every morning, you must check ‘Truth Social’, Trump’s own social media platform, to find out about his needs and mood for the day.

The great political realist Niccolò Machiavelli knew very well that such a scenario could develop in the case of an unstable and moody ruler. But he would certainly not have seen such a scenario as the ideal basis for successful power politics, not even for the party enacting such behaviour.

As a result of Trump’s unpredictability and, essentially, his narcissism, we can never be completely sure what is the real substance or reality of a political discussion, a conflict, or a diplomatic agreement in which he is involved:

• Two countries that have negotiated a peace settlement are forced to heap praise on Trump and name streets after him.
• NATO’s secretary general feels forced to thank ‘Big Daddy’ for his outstanding efforts.
• Ukraine’s president must say, without any reservations, that a meeting with Trump was magnificent and successful, regardless of how the meeting actually went (Zelenskyy has learned his lesson).
• A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who wants the United States to support her struggle for democracy must explain how central Trump is to her efforts – and preferably give him her Nobel medal.
• European leaders are forced to take seriously and attempt to rationalize an irrational and undiplomatic attempt to take over Greenland.
• Allies struggle to find ways of expressing honest disagreement and criticism, such as is currently the case with the war against Iran.
• And anyone who wants a job in Trump’s administration, must assure their boss that the 2020 US presidential election was fixed, however obviously false that statement is.

We don’t always know what these people really think, even if we can guess. That uncertainty is in itself deeply problematic. It is nothing new for diplomatic phrasing to be polite, and for expressions of gratitude as well as agreements – both foreign and domestic – to reflect a desire for goodwill. Indeed, my main intention here is not to criticize the parties or persons listed above for their behaviour. But to have to flatter and soothe the American president’s ego to such an inordinate extent, and for diplomatic statements to be published without necessarily having any ties to reality, skews the whole practice of diplomacy and politics.

When eyewitness descriptions reveal to us that the same thing occurs behind closed doors, the situation is shown to be even more dangerous. That it is impossible – or at least seems difficult – for an ally to express honest and clear disagreement with their most powerful partner in a confidential setting, creates a real danger that the solutions that are arrived at are far from optimal, and that the ideal of honesty is thrown out of the window. This may be about to change somewhat now, as deeper rifts over the Iran war emerge. But the starting point for such a reorientation is hardly ideal.

On the face of it, Trumpism could be seen as an instance of traditional political realism: The United States puts its own interests first and then engages in processes in which it encounters other parties’ interests – in everything from territorial issues to NATO’s financing. That’s fair enough, even if – as Norwegian political scientist Janne Haaland Matlary, among others, has pointed out on several occasions – it is genuinely difficult when one can no longer be certain as to which values one actually shares. (After all, NATO exists not only as a pact to secure its members’ own interests. NATO is intended to defend its members’ shared values as well.)

If one adds Trump’s unpredictability, mood swings, and desire for praise, as well as his tenuous relationship with the truth, this juncture in politics become extremely dangerous and unpredictable for anyone who believes in fundamental, shared values, not just domestically, but also in foreign policy.

When the principal party’s moods and desire for recognition take priority over rational honest debate, there is little point in describing the situation as traditional political realism. Instead, we have moved into different territory: personal politics rather than real foreign policy. For as long as Trump is president, this may be something we just have to live with.

However, our response must not be that we abandon our own values – or, for that matter, our interests.

• Henrik Syse is a Research Professor at PRIO
• This article appeared in an earlier form in the Norwegian daily newspaper Dagens Næringsliv on January 30, 2026