From tariffs to universities, Trump’s negotiating style is often less dealmaking and more coercion

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump prides himself on being a dealmaker, but his negotiating style is more ultimatum than compromise.

In the last week, Trump has slapped trading partnerswith tariffs rather than slog through prolonged talks to reach agreements. He ratcheted up the pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. And his administration launched a new investigation into higher education as he tries to reshape universities.

For Trump, a deal isn’t necessarily agreement in which two sides compromise — it’s an opportunity to bend others to his will. While Trump occasionally backs down from his threats, the past week is a reminder that they are a permanent feature of his presidency.

As Trump tightens his grip on independent institutions, there are fewer checks on his power. Republicans in Congress fear primary challenges backed by the president, and the Supreme Court is stocked with appointees from his first term.

Trump recently summed up his approach when talking to reporters about trade talks with other countries. “They don’t set the deal,” he said. “I set the deal.”

Trump’s allies believe his aggression is required in a political ecosystem where he’s under siege from Democrats, the court system and the media. In their view, the president is simply trying to fulfill the agenda that he was elected to achieve.

But critics fear he’s eroding the country’s democratic foundations with an authoritarian style. They say the president’s focus on negotiations is a facade for attempts to dominate his opponents and expand his power.

“Pluralism and a diversity of institutions operating with autonomy — companies, the judiciary, nonprofit institutions that are important elements of society — are much of what defines real democracy,” said Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard University. “That is threatened by heavy handed, extortionist approaches.”

Seeking control of higher education

Harvard has been a top target for Trump, starting in April when he demanded changes to the university’s governance and new faculty members to counteract liberal bias.

As Harvard resisted, administration officials terminated $2.2 billion in federal grants. The money is the lifeblood of the university’s sprawling research operation, which includes studies on cancer, Parkinson’s disease, space travel and pandemic preparedness.

Trump has also attempted to block Harvard from hosting roughly 7,000 foreign students, and he’s threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. His administration recently sent subpoenas asking for student data.

“They’ll absolutely reach a deal,” Trump said Wednesday.

Administration officials also pulled $175 million from the University of Pennsylvania in March over a dispute around women’s sports. They restored it when school officials agreed to update records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and change their policies.

Columbia University bent to Trump by putting its Middle East studies department under new supervision, among other changes, after the administration pulled $400 million in federal funding. At the University of Virginia, President James Ryan resigned under pressure following a Justice Department investigation into diversity, equity and inclusion practices. A similar investigation was opened Thursday at George Mason University.

“Federal funding is a privilege, not a right, for colleges and universities,” said Kush Desai, a White House spokesman.

Such steps were unheard of before Trump took office. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and an Education Department official under President Barack Obama, said Trump isn’t seeking deals but is “demanding more and more and more.”

“Institutional autonomy is an important part of what makes higher education work,” he said. “It’s what enables universities to pursue the truth without political considerations.”

Going after the Federal Reserve’s independence

The Fed has also faced Trump’s wrath. He blames Fed Chair Jerome Powell for moving too slowly to cut interest rates, which could make consumer debt like mortgages and auto loans more affordable. It could also help the U.S. government finance the federal debt that’s expected to climb from the tax cuts that Trump recently signed into law.

Powell has held off on cutting the central bank’s benchmark rate, as Trump’s tariffs could possibly worsen inflation and lower rates could intensify that problem. Desai said the White House believes the Fed should act based on what the data currently shows, which is that “President Trump’s policies have swiftly tamed inflation.”

Although Trump has said he won’t try to fire Powell — a step that might be impossible under the law anyway — he’s called on him to resign. In addition, Trump’s allies have increased their scrutiny of Powell’s management, particularly an expensive renovation of the central bank’s headquarters.

David Wessel, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said Trump’s approach could undermine the Fed’s credibility by casting a political shadow over its decisions.

“There will be real costs if markets and global investors think the Fed has been beaten into submission by Trump,” he said.

Tariff threats instead of trade deals

Trump originally wanted to enact sweeping tariffs in April. In his view, import taxes would fix the challenge of the U.S. buying too much from other countries and not selling enough overseas.

After a backlash in financial markets, Trump instituted a three-month negotiating period on tariffs. Peter Navarro, one of his advisers, said the goal was “90 deals in 90 days.”

The administration announced a few trade frameworks with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, but Trump ran out of patience. He’s sent letters to two dozen nations and the European Union informing them of their tariff rates, such as 30% against the EU and Mexico, potentially undercutting the work of his own negotiators.

Desai said Trump’s approach has generated “overwhelming interest” from other countries in reaching trade deals and gives the U.S. leverage in negotiations.

John C. Brown, a professor emeritus of economics at Clark University in Massachusetts, said the “willy-nilly setting of tariffs according to one person’s whims has no precedence in the history of trade policy since the 17th century.”

“It’s just bizarre,” Brown said of Trump’s moves. “No one has done this in history.”

The president has also used the threat of tariffs in an attempt to help political allies and influence other countries’ court systems. He told Brazil that he would implement a 50% tariff if the country didn’t drop its prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who like Trump was charged with trying to overturn an election.

Inu Manak, a fellow on trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Trump’s inconsistent approach will foster distrust of U.S. motives.

She noted that two of the letters went to Canada and South Korea, allies who have existing trade agreements with the U.S. approved by Congress.

By imposing new tariffs, she said, Trump is raising “serious questions about the meaning of signing any deal with the United States at all.”