Donald Trump’s false deal-making skills are literally killing reliability on America and trust in its word.

In a sobering appraisal of America’s recent diplomatic trajectory, The Atlantic warns that U.S. foreign-policy credibility is crumbling under a “deal-maker” approach that has repeatedly broken commitments and alienated allies.

At the heart of the warning: trust — among friend and foe alike — that the United States can be counted on to keep its word. That trust, once central to American influence, now appears jeopardized.

The anatomy of disintegrating trust

The outlet points to the deals without durability. The central critique is that President Donald Trump has treated diplomacy as a market transaction — “deals” to be struck, renegotiated, or reversed based on whim or political expediency.

More to read:
Trump is accused of insider trading and market manipulation amid tariff reversal controversy

But in practice, many of those deals have not held up: Trump's tariffs on Canada, Mexico, or India, his public reversals on promised sanctions, and abrupt shifts in alliances all undermine the notion that a deal with the U.S. is reliable.

Historically, American statesmen prioritized credibility: sustaining long-term commitments even when short-term costs mounted, precisely because consistency amplifies influence. Now, by contrast, the Trump era is marked by a willingness to abandon or reinterpret prior commitments, departing from U.S. diplomatic tradition.

Allies forced to hedge

Once-trusting partners are reacting, the analysis goes on.

Countries are beginning to “hedge” — diversifying partnerships, reducing dependence on U.S. technology or supply chains, and recalibrating expectations. Nations such as India, Egypt, Turkey, and Vietnam are increasingly comfortable aligning more closely with China or Russia, or at least holding open alternatives.

More to read:
Bannon is sure that Trump will hold on power beyond 2028

If adversaries and competitors believe the U.S. won’t reliably honor treaties or punishments, they discount threats and bristle at demands. The Atlantic argues that even when Trump threatens tariffs, sanctions, or export controls, those measures are often neither swiftly applied nor sustained — further eroding deterrent power.

Weakening U.S. position on the global stage

What the U.S. has obtained as a result can be summed up to a bunch of negative consequences.

Diminished influence in crisis zones. In conflicts such as Ukraine or the Middle East, promise without follow-through is hollow. Allies may become less willing to act in concert or accept costs unless they see concrete assurance of U.S. backing.

More to read:
The art of concession: Trump’s foreign policy failures

• Alliances under stress. Relations with traditional partners (Europe, Canada, Australia) have already frayed over tariff disputes and reversals. Mexico could be next. The Atlantic warns that such ruptures may deepen unless the U.S. can rebuild trust.
• Strategic vacuums exploited by rivals. With America’s reliability in question, China and Russia see opportunities. They now can court disillusioned states, offering alternatives in trade, security, or investment. Washington’s weakening influence is opening gaps for adversarial powers to fill.
• Domestic backlash and instability. The critique is not merely external: by undermining long-standing diplomatic norms, the Trump model could further polarize U.S. politics, making future leaders more hesitant to commit or more likely to reverse course themselves.

Ultimately, The Atlantic’s analysis paints a troubling picture of a superpower caught in a credibility crisis of its own making. Trust — once the cornerstone of American leadership — is now the most fragile commodity in its diplomatic arsenal.

More to read:
Investigation: Top Trump aide may be a foreign agent

When allies begin to doubt U.S. promises and adversaries start testing its resolve, the very foundation of the postwar order begins to crack. Restoring faith in American commitments will require more than rhetoric or transactional wins; it demands a return to consistency, principle, and long-term vision in foreign policy.

Without that, Washington risks forfeiting the very influence that once made it indispensable — and watching the world move on without it. This is inconsistent with Trump’s “America first” slogan.