In negotiations over wars in areas all over the globe, the Trump administration has been sending inconsistent messages. At times, the statements from the White House are so mixed that it is no longer clear what message the President is trying to send.
Soon after Vice President JD Vance said that the U.S. would not intervene and broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, President Trump claimed credit for brokering a truce between India and Pakistan.
“What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we’re not going to get involved in the middle of war that’s fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America’s ability to control it,” Vance said.
In the next two days, Vance would call Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio would be on the phone with officials in India and Pakistan.
President Donald Trump would then post, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.”
Despite claiming all the credit, the U.S. did not act alone. The Trump administration’s primary involvement was to get the two sides talking, though talks between India and Pakistan were really already taking place behind the scenes. The U.S. was not involved in helping to draft the actual agreement.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif credited the United States, saying, “We thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region.” India has not only not thanked the United States, but they are, reportedly, furious with them. Trump’s announcement caught India by surprise. It preempted India’s announcement that India and Pakistan had spoken for hours and agreed to a ceasefire, and it undermined Modi’s policy that the Kashmir dispute would be resolved through bilateral talks between India and Pakistan. India has downplayed the U.S. role.
On April 22, Trump completed a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that the two “are on the same side of every issue.” He then acted very differently.
On May 6, Trump announced that the U.S. would stop its attacks on Yemen since the Houthis had agreed to stop attacking American ships in the Red Sea. He did not mention if the Houthis would cease their attacks on Israel, and the Houthis made it clear that they would not. According to a senior Israeli official, Israel was not notified of the agreement by the U.S. and was caught by surprise. “We were completely shocked. Israel was not informed before Trump made the statement,” one Israeli official said.
Two days later, the U.S. announced that discussions with Saudi Arabia over cooperation on a Saudi civilian nuclear program that had previously been linked to Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel were no longer linked.
Then, on May 9, a report emerged that the White House was pressing Israel to agree to a ceasefire or be “left alone.”
In Iran, the messaging on the nuclear negotiations became so mixed that it was no longer clear what Washington is demanding from Tehran.
Iran has been clear that negotiations are limited to verifiable limits on its peaceful, civilian nuclear program. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has fully empowered his team to negotiate, but he has placed a firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”
Trump has consistently described the meetings the same way: “You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Members of his team, though, have not been as consistent. Then National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the U.S. is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” Rubio said that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program, but by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67 percent and no longer by enriching their own.
The message became truly convoluted when Trump told Meet the Press that the only concession from Iran he would accept was “total dismantlement.” Then, mixing the message even more, speaking in the Oval Office, Trump appeared to walk back that demand, saying, “We haven’t made that decision yet.”
The messaging in the Ukraine-Russia conflict is no less mixed. The Trump team recently presented a “final offer,” not on a 30-day ceasefire, but on a full-blown peace plan. When Ukraine signalled that they wanted the next meeting to continue to focus only on a 30-day ceasefire, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff pulled out of the talks.
Trump officials continued to signal a shift from focusing on a 30-day ceasefire to longer-term negotiations. In May, Vance said, “It’s not going to end any time soon…. We got ‘em talkin’. We got ‘em offering peace proposals.” Days later, he said, “The next big step we’d like to take” is having “the Russians and the Ukrainians… actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.”
Then, the administration seemed to pivot again with Trump posting that “The U.S. calls for, ideally, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire,” and that “If the ceasefire is not respected, the U.S. and its partners will impose further sanctions.”
The mixed messaging has left negotiations in a certain amount of confusion. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky believes he is accepting Trump’s demands by agreeing to a 30-day ceasefire; Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks he is accepting Trump’s demands by offering to “resume direct negotiations” in Istanbul.
Sticking with the competing formulation, Zelensky is reportedly “open to direct talks with Russia… but only if Moscow signs up to an unconditional ceasefire first.” Trump responded with the demand that “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY.”
In conflict negotiations around the world, the Trump administration has offered mixed messaging that has led to confusion about the terms of negotiations and about which party is rejecting those terms. Time will tell if the messaging is symptomatic of confusion in the Trump administration or if it is part of Trump’s negotiating strategy.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.
