Should Donald Trump’s "tactics” be deployed at mediations?

We have watched Donald Trump’s highly public and often combative negotiation tactics with equal parts of fascination, incredulity and alarm. Whether dealing with political adversaries, foreign leaders, or business partners, Trump has brought a bold, theatrical style to the negotiating table.  Our incredulity suggests that we instinctively believe this is not an effective way to negotiate. 

The classic negotiating training is based on the concept of “principled negotiation” (as advanced by Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes), which views negotiation as a mutual problem solving exercise, emphasising mutual gain. The classic example is a dispute over an orange - whilst both parties’ opening position is that they each want the orange, the investigation of the parties' interests reveals that one party is only interested in the peel whereas the other is only interested in the flesh and so a mutually beneficial solution emerges (whereas maintaining a positional approach would result in each getting half the orange and neither being satisfied).  

This “principled negotiation" is less apposite for “positional, distributive disputes” often found in commercial litigation or insurance claims, where the relationship is over or irrelevant, the only issue is how much money changes hands (and when), and no creative or interest-based outcomes are needed. In these disputes there is little room for the parties to negotiate other than positionally - i.e. my position is stronger than yours, so I should get more money than you are offering.  

Will Trump’s negotiating style have any impact on the participants in such “money only” disputes, as after all his approach is merely a very extreme version of positional negotiation? 

In his own words, from The Art of the Deal, Trump believes in “thinking big,” “maximising leverage,” and projecting confidence—often blurring the lines between posturing and bluffing.

Core elements of Trump’s approach include:

• Aggressive anchoring: starting with extreme positions to control the negotiation frame.

• Win-lose mentality: viewing negotiation as a zero-sum game where compromise signals weakness.

• Emotional provocation: using unpredictability, personal attacks, and insults to unsettle counterparts.

• Media theatre: leveraging public platforms to create pressure, control the narrative, or undermine opponents.

• Walk-away threats: making liberal use of ultimatums and threats to leave talks.

  
  

We have all experienced some or all of these tactics in our commercial negotiations.  Whilst they can be effective where one party has extreme leverage over the other, that is not the norm and usually they prove to be counterproductive.  The one thing that is certain about litigation is that there is no certainty of winning your case and in those circumstances, this extreme “hard bargaining” can only have the effect of:

• Entrenching the other side - extreme demands and combative tone often provoke defensive responses. In mediation, this reduces flexibility and stifles movement.

• Undermining mediator effectiveness - mediators rely on some cooperation to build momentum. When a party engages in brinkmanship or bombast, it limits the mediator’s ability to explore possible solutions.

• Eroding credibility - Trump’s style often involves bluffing, exaggerating, or posturing. In litigation-focused mediation, credibility is currency—once lost, it's hard to recover.

• Burning reputational capital - even if the dispute is one-off, counsel, insurers, and mediators often work in recurring networks. A party seen as performative or obstructive may damage its standing in future negotiations or proceedings.

  
  

In many ways, Donald Trump’s track record as a negotiator (i.e. ostensibly a bad one) allows mediators to discuss the effectiveness of such tactics before they derail the process.  Mediators can point to the extreme positions in the tariffs or in the Ukraine “negotiations” and demonstrate that they have not had the desired effect - even maybe the opposite.  In other words, the track record should not embolden parties in a commercial negotiation to emulate Donald Trump - instead they should look to adopt a modified approach.

A more effective approach might combine elements of firmness with discipline:

• Anchoring strongly - but based on a rationale (e.g., quantum analysis).

• Clearly defining limits - but without threats.

• Signalling confidence - without theatricality.

• Listening actively - while advocating robustly.

  
  

This hybrid strategy borrows the discipline of Trump’s assertiveness but avoids the dysfunction of his volatility, which would typically derail any litigation focussed negotiation.

Donald Trump’s negotiating style has undoubtedly influenced global perceptions of what negotiation looks like. In the narrow context of distributive mediation, where money is the only issue and no relationship is at stake, selective elements of his style - like (reasoned) anchoring and signalling strength - can serve a tactical purpose.

But adopting the full Trump persona - threats, bravado, and win-at-all-costs mentality - remains ill-suited even to these scenarios. English commercial mediations, even at their most adversarial, benefit from credibility, focus, and control - not drama.

As mediators, we can recognise the strategic motivations behind hard tactics while helping parties navigate them productively. Trump may make for memorable television - but good settlements still favour those who negotiate with intelligence, not belligerence.

Simon Goldring

June 2025