Trump’s Broken Deals Make Foreign Policy Difficult

# Summary

Ted Snider's piece catalogs recent diplomatic episodes to make one central point: partners and adversaries view deals with the United States as unreliable under President Trump. That perception is making foreign policy harder because countries start negotiating and planning as if U.S. commitments may be reversed at any moment.

# What happened with Canada

# Saudi Arabia and the nuclear deal

After more than a year of talks, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia signed a nuclear agreement that would have allowed Saudi enrichment after a joint two-year feasibility study. The day after the announcement, President Trump posted that there would be no enrichment and tied approval to Saudi participation in the Abraham Accords. Those public reversals contradicted what Riyadh had signed and introduced new conditions that undermined the deal.

# Ukraine and defense technology

President Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the U.S. would allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missiles and would show them how. Days later, Trump denied agreeing to that. Such back-and-forth messaging weakens Ukraine's confidence in U.S. commitments and increases strategic uncertainty for Kyiv.

# Iran and the JCPOA context

The article recalls that Iran was complying with the 2015 JCPOA when the Trump administration withdrew in 2018. Even after that withdrawal, Iran reportedly showed willingness to negotiate a new deal with concessions such as resuming inspections, diluting enriched uranium stockpiles, and capping enrichment. Instead of pursuing a negotiated pathway, the U.S. attacked Iranian leaders during those negotiations, reinforcing Tehran's view that U.S. commitments can be rescinded and replaced by force.

# The broader effect on diplomacy

Across these cases, the pattern is the same: agreed or negotiated terms are altered publicly or privately by the U.S. after partners have relied on them. The consequence is reputational damage. When foreign governments expect U.S. commitments to be temporary or conditional in unpredictable ways, they hesitate to make concessions, invest in joint projects, or align strategically with Washington. That hesitancy constrains U.S. influence and makes coordinated responses to shared challenges more difficult.

# Practical takeaway for readers

The article's central practical point is straightforward: if partners believe a U.S. president will reverse deals, multinational agreements, long-term projects, and security cooperation will be harder to negotiate and sustain. The examples given—Canada, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Iran—are concrete instances where perceived U.S. unreliability has immediate diplomatic and strategic costs.