WASHINGTON D.C: President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is increasingly defined by speed, personalization, and executive control, a shift that is reshaping U.S. diplomacy while unsettling allies and sidelining traditional institutions.
The most visible example emerged from Greenland. Last month, U.S., Danish, and Greenlandic officials met in Nuuk for routine talks, with no discussion of U.S. acquisition or military control. Yet within weeks, Trump appointed a special envoy, Jeff Landry, who publicly declared his mission was to help “make Greenland part of the U.S.” The statement stunned Copenhagen and blindsided senior U.S. officials working on Europe and NATO issues, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The Arctic is now a central arena of geopolitical competition due to melting ice routes, access to critical minerals, and military positioning. The United States already operates Pituffik Space Base in Greenland under a 1951 treaty with Denmark, allowing military expansion without sovereignty changes. Yet Trump’s public flirtation with acquisition and his administration’s refusal to rule out coercive measures alarmed allies and lawmakers.
After White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller declined in a January interview to rule out military action, concern surged across Washington and European capitals. Lawmakers from both parties contacted the administration, warning that any military move without congressional authorization would violate constitutional requirements. European leaders publicly reaffirmed Denmark’s sovereignty and cautioned against coercive tactics.
This week, Trump sought to de-escalate. He withdrew tariff threats against European allies and announced what he called a “framework of a future deal” with NATO regarding Greenland and the Arctic, following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at Davos. Two senior administration sources confirmed that military action was never seriously considered, but analysts argue the diplomatic damage may already be done. Former Pentagon official Kori Schake warned that repeated public threats undermine U.S. credibility and alliance confidence, complicating deterrence and strategic planning.
The Greenland episode reflects a broader transformation in U.S. foreign policy-making. Under Trump, decisions increasingly originate from the president and a small circle of trusted aides including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio often without prior consultation with the State Department, National Security Council, Pentagon, or Congress. Historically, U.S. foreign policy relied on layered interagency review. That process is now compressed, with major moves announced publicly before institutional consensus is formed.
This approach is also evident in Ukraine diplomacy. According to multiple officials, a 28-point peace framework was developed through private discussions involving Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev without the involvement of senior State Department or National Security Council officials typically responsible for such negotiations. While Ukrainian officials recently described trilateral talks as “constructive,” European partners worry that parallel diplomacy risks sidelining alliance coordination in a conflict involving nuclear powers and core NATO interests.
A similar pattern has unfolded in Syria. In May, Trump met Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa publicly in Saudi Arabia, signaling U.S. recognition and lifting sanctions despite internal objections. Since then, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack has driven Syria policy implementation with limited input from traditional regional and policy experts, according to officials familiar with the process.
The White House and State Department reject claims of exclusion, insisting collaboration remains strong and dismissing critics as anonymous sources unwilling to implement the president’s agenda. Supporters argue that centralized diplomacy enables faster decisions, stronger leverage, and fewer bureaucratic constraints in a multipolar world where rivals like China and Russia act decisively.
However, the strategic risks are increasingly evident. Allies face unpredictability in U.S. commitments. Diplomats are excluded from early-stage policy formulation. Congress is often informed after, not before, major shifts. Adversaries may misread signals, increasing the risk of escalation or miscalculation.
In international relations, credibility depends not only on power but on consistency. Sudden reversals threatening tariffs and then retracting them, floating military options and then denying them weaken deterrence and complicate alliance planning.
What is emerging is not simply a governing style, but a doctrine: foreign policy as executive command rather than institutional process. Whether this produces long-term strategic advantage or long-term erosion of trust remains unresolved. But one conclusion is already clear from Greenland to Ukraine, America’s diplomacy is now driven less by institutions and more by the president himself, with consequences that are reverberating across the global order.
-Eric Heinrich
