The importance of understanding the other side’s negotiating style. What can we learn from the US–EU trade talks.

The Trump approach: power and dominance

In his autobiography, The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump describes negotiation as a contest of strength, determination, and dominance. His vision is clear: anyone who shows uncertainty or makes concessions too early is immediately perceived as a loser. His negotiating style is based on constant pressure, maximalist demands, and calculated threats, to obtain unilateral advantages. In this scheme, compromise is not a point of arrival, but a sign of weakness to be avoided.

Trump has always been a competitive negotiator, focused on immediate results and uninterested in balanced solutions unless they are strictly functional to his interests.

Other negotiating styles: compromising and collaborative

In contrast to this competitive approach, there are two other relevant negotiating styles:

• The compromising style aims to reach a ‘middle ground’ agreement, in which both parties give something up to achieve an acceptable solution. It is a pragmatic approach, practical in situations where time is limited or positions are too far apart for genuine collaboration.
• The collaborative style, on the other hand, aims to create win-win solutions. The parties seek to thoroughly understand each other’s interests and work together to build an outcome that maximizes the benefit for both. It requires openness, time, and trust.

In commercial negotiations, the compromising or collaborative approach can only work if the other party shares the same logic. But when dealing with an explicitly competitive actor such as Trump, adopting a compromising style risks seriously penalizing the other party, for at least three reasons:

• It conveys weakness

An accommodating gesture is seen not as a sign of openness, but as a point of pressure to be exploited. The competitive negotiator, focused on gaining an immediate advantage, interprets it as a willingness to give even more.

• It relinquishes bargaining power

The EU has a vast market and significant trade levers, especially in a context where the US is closing the door to the Chinese market. Offering concessions at the outset is tantamount to burning your cards without getting anything in return. In a competitive confrontation, the first move can set the tone for the negotiation: once a concession has been made, it is very difficult to backtrack.

• It legitimizes the negotiating imbalance

An unbalanced compromise, if accepted without resistance, risks becoming the new basis for future trade relations, systematically penalizing the EU in subsequent rounds.

Why 30%? The anchor technique

Trump often uses a negotiating technique known as the anchor technique. This consists of deliberately setting a very high target at the beginning of the negotiation (in our case, the threat of 30% tariffs).

The aim is to create a psychological perimeter for the negotiation and force the other party to reason on the basis of that figure, even though they are aware that it is arbitrary. This technique allows one to influence the scope of the discussion and obtain greater concessions, just as Trump has done.

The worst response: unilateral concessions with no return

Unfortunately, the European Union has already shown worrying signs of a compromising attitude that has not been negotiated with the Trump administration, for example:

• The waiver of the web tax* on American digital giants, without obtaining any regulation or shared tax contribution in return.
• The offer to increase imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US, made to reassure Washington, without obtaining anything in return.
• The acceptance of the increase in NATO spending to 5% of GDP, demanded by Trump, again without obtaining anything in return.

All these offers without asking for anything in return reinforce the idea that the EU is willing to concede from the outset. Trump, true to his competitive logic, sees these concessions as a starting point, not a compromise: this pushes him to raise his demands, not moderate them.

Persevering would be a fatal mistake

Continuing along this path of compromise, in the hope that accommodation will ease the pressure, would be not only ineffective but counterproductive. With a competitive negotiator, unilateral concessions do not stop escalation: they fuel it. Any sign of weakness is interpreted as additional room for maneuver.

A helpful example is China’s reaction during the trade war initiated by Trump. Faced with massive tariffs imposed by the US, Beijing responded in kind, imposing equivalent tariffs. Instead of giving in, it spoke the same language of power. The result is there for all to see: after weeks of escalation, the US had to moderate its position, opening up to a more balanced agreement.

The right strategy: speak his language

To avoid the mistakes of the past, the EU should therefore reverse its negotiating logic. Not to fuel confrontation, but to restore a credible balance. Some applicable countermeasures could be:

• Target Trump’s electoral base, particularly the agricultural sectors (soy, corn, beef), with selective tariffs or targeted restrictions.
• Put the European web tax* back on the table, even with a minimum rate, linking any exemptions to real concessions from the US.

These well-calibrated moves would strengthen the EU’s position and show that it can defend its interests by speaking a language Trump understands: that of strength and bargaining power.

Going beyond requests, seeking the other party’s interests

A fundamental principle in any negotiation is to identify the other side’s interests and find a way to allow them to achieve them without sacrificing your own. This is no easy task, given Trump’s notorious volatility and the lack of sound arguments to justify the demands made in the negotiations.

In the case of the EU-US negotiations, it must be borne in mind that Trump is playing the game with his electoral base in mind: an agreement must offer him a narrative of victory to communicate to his electorate.

Takeaway

When negotiating with a competitive player like Trump, one should abandon the accommodating approach, avoid concessions without something in return, and adopt a style that is more assertive, strategic, and symmetrical.

Only then will it be able to build an agreement that is solid, fair, and respectful of its economic and political strength.