From Persuasion to Coercion: Understanding the Spectrum of American Influence in Pursuing Foreign Policy Objectives under the Trump Administrations

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

 

Abstract

The United States has historically employed a combination of diplomatic, economic, military, political, and ideological instruments to advance its foreign policy objectives. The two administrations of President Donald Trump provide an important opportunity to examine how these instruments operate across a spectrum ranging from persuasion and negotiation to economic pressure and military coercion. This article examines the instruments of American influence during Trump’s first administration (2017–2021) and second administration (2025–present), identifying continuities, changes, and their implications for international relations. It argues that American influence under Trump reflects a transactional approach to statecraft in which diplomatic engagement, economic leverage, military deterrence, and political pressure are employed, sometimes simultaneously, to pursue national interests. The article also considers the implications of these approaches for international cooperation, state sovereignty, international peace, and global governance.

Keywords: American foreign policy, Trump administration, statecraft, coercive diplomacy, economic sanctions, international relations, global governance.

Introduction

Foreign policy provides states with the means to protect their national interests, influence international developments, and shape the behaviour of other actors in the international system. These objectives are pursued through various instruments, including diplomacy, economic incentives, trade restrictions, military power, alliances, and participation in international institutions. The selection of these instruments depends on the objectives pursued, the international environment, and the relative power of the states involved.

The two administrations of Donald Trump offer an important case study of the relationship between persuasion and coercion in American foreign policy. During his first administration (2017–2021), Trump adopted an explicitly transactional approach to international relations, emphasising economic reciprocity, burden-sharing among allies, and the prioritisation of American national interests. His second administration, beginning in January 2025, has continued to employ several of these instruments while introducing or intensifying other forms of diplomatic and economic pressure.

This article examines the spectrum of American influence under the two Trump administrations. It explores how diplomatic persuasion, economic leverage, military deterrence, and political pressure have been employed to pursue foreign policy objectives. It also considers the consequences of these approaches for international peace, security, and global governance.

Understanding the Spectrum of State Influence

State influence refers to the ability of a country to shape the decisions, policies, or behaviour of other international actors in accordance with its objectives. Such influence does not necessarily depend on military superiority. It may derive from diplomatic relationships, economic resources, institutional authority, cultural attraction, or the capacity to impose costs on other states.

Nye (2004) distinguishes between soft power, which operates through attraction and persuasion, and hard power, which relies on coercion and inducement. Smart power involves combining different instruments to achieve strategic objectives.

Similarly, Schelling (1966) explains how threats and bargaining can influence the decisions of other actors without necessarily requiring the actual use of force. This distinction is particularly relevant to American foreign policy, where diplomatic negotiations may occur alongside economic sanctions, military deployments, or threats of further action.

The spectrum of state influence can therefore be understood through four broad approaches: persuasion, incentives, pressure, and coercion. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. States may combine them depending on the circumstances and the responses of their counterparts.

Diplomatic Instruments: Negotiation, Engagement, and Pressure

Diplomacy remains one of the principal instruments through which the United States advances its international objectives. During Trump’s first administration, personal diplomacy and direct negotiations featured prominently in relations with North Korea, particularly the 2018 Singapore summit and the 2019 Hanoi summit. These engagements demonstrated the administration’s willingness to pursue high-level negotiations with governments with which Washington had longstanding disagreements. However, the negotiations did not produce a comprehensive agreement on North Korea’s denuclearisation.

Another example was the Abraham Accords of 2020, through which the Trump administration facilitated the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, followed by agreements involving Morocco. These developments demonstrated how diplomatic mediation could be used to promote strategic partnerships and advance regional political objectives (U.S. Department of State, n.d.).

During the second administration, personal diplomacy has remained prominent, accompanied by greater reliance on economic and political pressure. The approach illustrates that diplomatic persuasion and coercive pressure can operate alongside one another rather than as mutually exclusive instruments.

Economic Instruments: Trade, Sanctions, and Financial Pressure

Economic statecraft represents one of the most significant instruments of American influence. Through access to its financial markets, trade relationships, investment opportunities, and the international reach of the dollar, the United States possesses considerable capacity to influence the economic calculations of other countries.

During Trump’s first administration, the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018 and the reimposition of sanctions against Iran illustrated the use of economic coercion to pursue nuclear and security objectives (The White House, 2018). The administration also employed tariffs against China as part of its effort to address trade disputes and negotiate changes in economic relations.

In the second administration, economic pressure has remained prominent. The February 2025 decision to restore the maximum-pressure campaign against Iran sought to restrict Iranian oil revenues and intensify economic pressure over its nuclear and regional policies (The White House, 2025a). The administration also introduced reciprocal tariffs affecting numerous trading partners, using trade restrictions as leverage in negotiations over trade and economic relations (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2026a).

These examples demonstrate how economic instruments can serve both punitive and bargaining purposes. Nevertheless, their consequences extend beyond the targeted governments, potentially affecting international trade, investment, and economic stability.

Military and Security Instruments: Deterrence and Coercive Power

Military power occupies the coercive end of the spectrum of state influence. Its application may involve direct military intervention, military assistance, strategic deployments, deterrence, and threats of force.

During Trump’s first administration, the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani demonstrated the administration’s willingness to employ direct military force in pursuit of its security objectives. The decision generated significant international debate concerning military escalation, sovereignty, and the consequences for regional stability.

Military deterrence also featured prominently in relations with NATO allies. Trump repeatedly questioned the distribution of defence responsibilities within the alliance and pressed European members to increase their military expenditure. His administration presented burden-sharing as essential to the sustainability of collective defence (U.S. Department of State, 2019).

During the second administration, military and security instruments have continued to feature in American foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran and the Western Hemisphere. The administration’s 2025 Iran policy combined economic sanctions with military deterrence. Its approach to strategic locations, including the Panama Canal and Greenland, has also involved security arguments and political pressure (CRS, 2026b).

The use or threat of military power can strengthen bargaining positions, but it also carries risks of escalation, retaliation, and weakened confidence in international security arrangements.

Political, Institutional, and Ideological Instruments

American influence also operates through political relationships, international institutions, ideological positioning, and strategic communication.

During Trump’s first administration, the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the JCPOA reflected a preference for reassessing international commitments according to the administration’s interpretation of American national interests. These decisions demonstrated how participation in international agreements can itself become an instrument of foreign policy.

The Abraham Accords, conversely, illustrated the use of diplomatic relationships to reshape regional political alignments. Similarly, Trump’s demands for increased NATO defence contributions demonstrated how alliance relationships could be used to negotiate changes in the distribution of security responsibilities.

During the second administration, the emphasis on national sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and American primacy has continued to influence its engagement with international institutions and partners. The administration’s approach to the Western Hemisphere has particularly emphasised limiting the strategic presence of external competitors in locations considered important to American security (CRS, 2026b).

These developments demonstrate that institutional participation, political alignment, and ideological communication are not merely expressions of diplomatic preference; they can also serve as instruments for advancing national interests.

Assessing the Spectrum of American Influence: A Comparative Perspective

A comparative examination of the two Trump administrations reveals important continuities and changes in the instruments employed to advance American foreign policy objectives. During the first administration (2017–2021), the emphasis on transactional diplomacy, economic nationalism, military deterrence, and the prioritisation of American national interests was evident in relations with China, Iran, North Korea, and NATO allies. These approaches demonstrated the administration’s willingness to combine diplomatic engagement with economic and military pressure.

The second administration (2025–present) has continued several of these approaches, while expanding the application of economic and political pressure in pursuing strategic objectives. The renewed maximum-pressure campaign against Iran, reciprocal tariffs affecting trading partners, and demands concerning strategic interests in the Western Hemisphere illustrate the continued importance of economic leverage and coercive diplomacy. Similarly, the emphasis on defence spending among NATO members reflects the persistence of transactional bargaining in American security relationships.

Nevertheless, the instruments of influence employed by the two administrations have not necessarily produced identical outcomes. During the first administration, the Singapore summit with North Korea demonstrated the potential of high-level diplomacy to create opportunities for engagement, although it did not secure a comprehensive denuclearisation agreement. The Abraham Accords, on the other hand, produced tangible diplomatic normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states. In contrast, the withdrawal from the JCPOA and the reimposition of sanctions against Iran demonstrated the limitations of economic coercion in securing lasting diplomatic settlements.

The effectiveness of these instruments depends not only on America’s economic and military capabilities but also on the responses of targeted governments, the interests of other international actors, and the wider geopolitical environment. Economic sanctions may impose substantial costs without necessarily producing the desired political concessions. Military threats may strengthen bargaining positions but can also provoke resistance and escalation. Diplomatic agreements may achieve immediate breakthroughs without resolving underlying political disagreements.

Consequently, American influence should be assessed not simply by its capacity to compel other states to accept particular demands, but also by the durability of the outcomes achieved, their international legitimacy, and their implications for diplomatic relations and global stability.

Implications for International Peace and Global Governance

The use of persuasion and coercion in American foreign policy raises important questions about the relationship between national interests and international responsibilities. Although states possess the sovereign right to pursue their security and economic objectives, the methods employed can have consequences for other countries and the international system.

Economic sanctions and trade restrictions may affect populations beyond the governments they target. Military threats and intervention can undermine regional stability, while unilateral decisions concerning international agreements may weaken confidence in multilateral cooperation.

The renewed emphasis on tariffs and strategic pressure during the second Trump administration has also generated responses from affected countries, including retaliatory measures and efforts to diversify their international economic relationships (CRS, 2026a). Similarly, American pressure concerning strategic assets in the Western Hemisphere has raised questions about sovereignty and the limits of great-power influence (CRS, 2026b).

For international peace and global governance, the central challenge is therefore not whether powerful states should pursue national interests, but how they can do so without undermining international law, peaceful coexistence, and the principles of sovereign equality.

Conclusion

The two Trump administrations provide an important illustration of the spectrum of instruments available to powerful states in pursuing foreign policy objectives. From diplomatic negotiations and strategic partnerships to economic sanctions, trade restrictions, military deterrence, and political pressure, American foreign policy demonstrates the interaction between persuasion and coercion in contemporary international relations.

Although the instruments employed during the two administrations exhibit considerable continuity, their application has evolved in response to changing geopolitical circumstances and strategic priorities.

Ultimately, state influence cannot be evaluated solely by the capacity to compel another government to accept particular demands. Its sustainability also depends on international legitimacy, diplomatic credibility, reciprocal cooperation, and respect for international law. A foreign policy that balances national interests with these considerations is essential to maintaining international peace, security, and an effective system of global governance.

References

Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton University Press.

Congressional Research Service. (2026a). Presidential 2025 tariff actions: Timeline and status (Report No. R48549). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2026-01-12_R48549_b46ab4e499112830fec98ff1de35d6e0768a6733.html

Congressional Research Service. (2026b). U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere: Issues for Congress (Report No. R48960). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2026-05-26_R48960_b70cd0597fd50093108205b85963771140c2654b.html

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. Yale University Press.

The White House. (2018, May 8). President Donald J. Trump is ending United States participation in an unacceptable Iran deal. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-ending-united-states-participation-unacceptable-iran-deal/

The White House. (2025a, February 4). Fact sheet: President Donald J. Trump restores maximum pressure on Iran. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-restores-maximum-pressure-on-iran/

U.S. Department of State. (2019). An update on American diplomacy to advance our national security strategy. https://2017-2021.state.gov/an-update-on-american-diplomacy-to-advance-our-national-security-strategy/

U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). The Abraham Accords. https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/