Donald Trump’s summit conduct is a national hazard, analysts say

President Donald Trump’s conduct during summits, such as his ongoing engagement with Chinese President Xi Jinping, unfolds as a national hazard that misunderstands America’s standing, according to rebukes from a conservative commentator and a national security analyst.

The White House Tour and the Autopen Jab

Writing for The Atlantic on Thursday, Tom Nichols, a retired professor from the US Naval War College, detailed the cringeworthy optics of Trump hosting foreign heads of state. Once inside the White House, Trump took Xi on a quick tour, ensuring the Chinese leader noticed a petty administrative jab.

A picture of an autopen had previously been swapped in by Trump to take the place of Joe Biden’s portrait within the hall of presidents. On their walk, Trump made sure Xi saw it, even giving the Chinese leader a pat on the arm while yukking it up.

National Review conservative writer Charles Cooke posted on X about Trump’s grotesque behavior, noting that Xi is a communist dictator and the head of a foreign state, and internal divisions are not fair game in this context.

Summertime Diplomacy as a Club Membership

Nichols diagnosed the deeper systemic failure in Trump’s approach to foreign policymaking, contrasting it sharply with traditional American statecraft. Trump does not think in terms of geopolitical strategy or national interest during summits with adversaries like Xi Jinping or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

His summits function as a national hazard precisely because Trump apparently does not understand that he is representing the United States. Instead, he seems to think he is just having a visit with some of the guys in a very cool club of which he would very much like to be a member.

These attempts to ingratiate himself are obvious and pathetic, functioning as a giant tell to America’s opponents that this president likes you, fears you, and wants your approval. In the Donald Trump White House, summits turn into hazardous excursions where American interests are shoved aside by a leader whose admiration of dictators transforms official meetings into rituals of American humiliation.

The Precedent of Helsinki and Putin

This dynamic of deference reached its zenith during Trump’s 2018 summit in Helsinki with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. No one has taken Trump to the cleaners more times than Putin, who appears to command both veneration and fear from the leader.

Standing next to Putin after their closed-door meeting, Trump told the world he accepted the word of a former KGB spy over reports from the U.S. intelligence community. This took place even at a time when Trump’s Cabinet and staff included individuals far more prepared to provide him with difficult truths than his present-day group of sycophants.

Interviews conducted by this journalist with Salon involving individuals targeted during that summit highlight the profound diplomatic damage. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul explained that Trump assigned moral equivalency to a legitimate indictment against Russian military intelligence officers and a completely fabricated story invented by Putin.

Billionaire and whistleblower Bill Browder, another figure Trump offered to hand over to Putin during the Helsinki summit, expressed deep horror at the proposition. The idea that Trump entertained handing over U.S. citizens to Vladimir Putin over their work on the Magnitsky Act underscored the erratic nature of these meetings.

Isolation and the Danger of Echo Chambers

During an appearance on MS NOW in August with anchor Nicolle Wallace, Nichols warned about the insular nature of the administration.

He now has become completely wrapped up in his own power and surrounded by people that are just footmen rather than advisors, Nichols told Wallace, describing the arrangement as incredibly dangerous. When a president loses touch with reality because they are cut off from anything that can contradict the movie inside their own head, the stakes transcend standard political theater.

What are your thoughts on how modern diplomacy handles presidential optics? Let us know in the comments below.