Trump or America's national interests, which takes priority in policymaking?

In the three months since the new US administration took office, Trump's positions and actions, especially his self-praise, have always been at the forefront of the world's media.

A few days ago, on the sidelines of a meeting with the President of El Salvador, Trump once again presented a strange picture of his personal abilities, claiming that he had taken an IQ test and his score was so high that it surprised doctors. He added: "They told me they had never seen anyone with such a high IQ!"

Rather than having a serious aspect in the political environment, such statements are a reflection of his specific personality traits, such as the need for admiration, narcissism, and exaggeration.

Trump has repeatedly and explicitly called himself “the best president in American history.” This claim has been repeated many times in speeches, interviews, and even tweets and on his social media platform, Truth Social. For example, in September 2020, at a campaign rally in Ohio, he said: “No one has done a better job for America than I have. I am the best president this country has ever seen.”

And in 2023, he wrote in Truth Social: “By far, I am the best president in American history. Even my enemies cannot deny that.” Earlier in 2018, in an interview with Fox News, he compared himself to Abraham Lincoln and emphasized: “I may have done more for the people than Lincoln.”

Political psychologists consider Trump’s personality to be mixed with self-importance, narcissism, and a constant need for approval. Many analysts believe that his politics stems not from national interests, but from his psychological characteristics and personal inclinations.

In reputable scientific polls such as the Siena University poll or C-SPAN rankings, presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt top the list of the best, while Trump does not even appear in the top 10 US presidents.

This gap between Trump’s personal self-image and the assessment of independent institutions is evidence of the strong influence of his psychology on his political discourse; personality traits and behavior that are visible in his confrontation with international actors.

Zelenskyy’s humiliation; the cost of not knowing Trump deeply

The historic meeting on March 1st between US President Donald Trump and his vice president J.D. Vance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House turned into a heated argument between them in front of the world’s media, and Trump and his vice president humiliated their guest.

During this meeting, the US president repeatedly shouted at Zelenskyy in front of reporters in the presidential office. The US president called Zelensky’s comments “disrespectful” and then threatened him, saying: “If it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended much sooner. Either you have to agree, or we will no longer intervene.” You don't have enough force; you can't tell us whether you want a ceasefire or not. Following the argument, which even saw Zelensky's clothing mocked by reporters, Trump expelled the Ukrainian president and his entourage from the White House.

Trump’s dealings with Zelenskyy were a prime example of the personalization of foreign policy and the prioritization of personal feelings over the national interests of the United States. The result of this personal tension was a serious blow to international trust in US foreign policy. Other leaders realized that relations with the United States could be regulated not by national interests or diplomatic principles, but by the president’s assessments and feelings.

For Trump, who likes to be known as the only person to whom history’s biggest knots can be untied, Zelensky’s disrespect and verbal tension with him was not to be tolerated; as was the showy agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un that occurred during his first term. As the first US president to set foot on North Korean soil, Trump tried to portray this move as a major achievement in the history of US diplomacy. He repeatedly emphasized that only through the power of his personality and unique style was he able to bring the leader of the world’s most isolated country to the negotiating table.

But rather than leading to a real and lasting agreement, these meetings became a stage for Trump’s promotion on the global stage. Photos of the two, symbolic walks, and diplomatic smiles replaced detailed talks and binding agreements. While these talks were expected to lead to North Korea’s denuclearization, not only did they not happen, but Pyongyang also appeared more determined in continuing its path of developing its nuclear program.

The Pride behind the tariff war

Trump’s tariff war, which began with the imposition of heavy consequences on imports from various countries, was seen by observers as a reflection of his narcissism and personal desire to display power on the international stage, rather than a response to America’s economic challenges.

The US president has repeatedly used these measures as a propaganda trump card without presenting a specific economic plan, trying to portray himself in the minds of the American public as a decisive and uncompromising leader. But what happened was increased costs for American consumers, tensions with trading partners, and instability in global markets.

Trump’s claims that he “begged” countries to negotiate tariffs were more indicative of his excessive desire to be seen and to instill a sense of superiority than based on diplomatic realities. He has repeatedly claimed, in a mocking tone, that countries such as China, Canada, and European countries “do not give up” in reaching trade agreements, while many of these countries have taken countermeasures and restricted trade relations with the United States in response to his actions.

In fact, Trump's tariff policy failed to secure America's long-term economic interests and caused distrust and relative isolation of the country in the global trading system. After China retaliated and imposed tariffs of more than 100 percent, the United States was forced to exempt more than 70 countries from tariffs for 90 days, temporarily withdrawing from the tariff war against the world.

In addition to the tariff issue, Trump's claims to annex Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama to the United States, along with the use of exaggerated language to describe imaginary successes, are more rooted in demagogic discourse and Trump's psychology than in realistic analyses of international politics.

Final Words

A review of various evidence from Donald Trump’s presidency, both in the domestic and foreign policy arenas, suggests that many of his decisions and behaviors stem from his personality traits rather than from the strategic interests of the United States or accurate political analysis. Narcissism, an excessive desire for public praise, a tendency to exaggerate, and a love of creating spectacular achievements are evident in many parts of his performance.

From his claim to have a higher IQ than all previous presidents to his description of himself as “the greatest president in American history,” everything points to a personality who understands politics not as a tool for effective governance but as a stage for being seen.

Such an attitude was also reflected in Trump’s international interactions, both in the first administration and in the first three months of the second administration. He has turned diplomacy into an arena for self-promotion and settled for media gestures and superficial agreements in the face of major global challenges rather than offering solutions based on America’s national interests. As a result, personal decisions have replaced expert analysis, and this person-centered approach to politics has caused America’s allies to doubt the stability and predictability of this country.

Finally, it is important to note that actors who face Trump’s America and seek to engage with this country should consider Trump’s personal and personality traits rather than analyzing America’s national interests.