Unpacking Trump’s Peace Deals: What Really Happened with Transactional Diplomacy?

Former President Donald Trump often spoke of ending “seven unendable wars” through his administration’s peace initiatives. But what exactly were these Trump peace deals, and how effective were they? Let’s take a closer look at the actual outcomes of his “resources-for-peace” approach:

• Many of these deals were less about lasting peace and more about securing U.S. economic interests, often leading to fragile outcomes.
• The agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, lauded for stopping conflict, saw continued fighting, suggesting a focus on mineral access over genuine resolution.
• The “peace treaty” between Armenia and Azerbaijan was an investment deal, not a legally binding resolution, and largely ignored justice for victims in Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Future transactional peace plans could risk prioritizing economic gain over human rights and self-determination, potentially fueling instability.
• Sustainable peace requires inclusive approaches, local participation, robust verification, and a focus on justice and human rights.

In his time, former President Donald Trump often asserted he had “ended seven unendable wars.” This was a significant claim, one that invites us to critically examine the reality behind these Trump peace deals. Many of these agreements, far from being breakthroughs in global conflict resolution, seemed to hinge on a transactional view of peace. This approach tended to put American economic interests and quick fixes ahead of the deeper, more complex work needed for true, lasting stability. This article will dive into specific cases, like those involving the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, to really understand the shaky ground of a “resources-for-peace” model and what it means for our future.

How did Trump’s ‘resources-for-peace’ approach shape his foreign policy?

The core criticism of the Trump administration peace efforts comes from their guiding idea: that peace can be bought and sold. Instead of building deep reconciliation, tackling the root causes of conflict, or ensuring fair justice, these initiatives often centered on gaining access to resources and property. This transactional mindset, while it might offer some immediate, surface-level wins, often results in fragile situations. We see this in the ongoing conflicts where these deals were made. It’s a way of operating that risks deepening exploitation and chipping away at national sovereignty, especially in countries rich in resources but vulnerable geopolitically. The promise of economic success often became a bargaining chip, sometimes at the cost of real human security and political independence, creating reliance rather than genuine teamwork. The focus on economic incentives, while seemingly practical, often missed the mark on true, sustainable conflict resolution. You can learn more about cost efficiency in a different context here, but the principle of transactional value remains.

Did the Trump administration’s DRC-Rwanda agreement truly stop conflict, or was it about mineral access?

The Trump administration’s June agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda was touted as having “stopped” the conflict in the DRC. Yet, reports clearly show that fighting continues intensely in the country’s eastern regions. This predictable outcome points to a major flaw: the deal’s main goal seemed less about creating lasting peace and more about securing U.S. access to the DRC’s vast mineral wealth, like cobalt and copper, which are vital for modern tech and for countering China’s influence in this sector. This clearly highlights the transactional nature of these Trump peace deals.

Eastern DRC is a complex area where over 100 armed groups fight for land, resources, and power. Neighboring countries like Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi make the violence worse by supporting different factions to further their own interests, trapping the region in a cycle of conflict that has lasted for decades. The illegal trade in minerals, fueled by this instability, generates billions, enriching militias, corrupt officials, and foreign players, thereby creating a grim reason for the conflict to go on. What’s alarming is that the Washington agreement largely ignored the many reasons for this conflict—like ethnic marginalization, land disputes, weak governance, and widespread displacement. Instead, it focused on an economic framework. This framework, intended to “de-risk” mineral supply chains and create opportunities for U.S. investors, was seen by many Congolese as just another chapter in a history of exploitation. This jeopardizes the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations. It felt like the perceived benefits for the U.S. were overshadowing the urgent need for genuine, local-led peacebuilding.

For the economic parts of the agreement to work, the fighting must end. Kinshasa has clearly stated it won’t move forward with the economic deal until 90 percent of Rwandan troops leave eastern DRC. To complicate matters, Rwanda strongly backs the M23, the most powerful rebel group there. The deal’s vague clause, which prohibits supporting non-state armed groups “except as necessary” for the agreement’s implementation, leaves a big loophole for continued intervention. At the same time, the deal called for disarming the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a militia connected to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. While disarming them is crucial, the agreement lacks strong enforcement, especially given the Congolese army’s weaknesses and that much of the FDLR operates in M23-controlled areas. This has led to a standstill, with neither side ready to make the first significant move, leaving the region constantly unstable. The absence of key players like Burundi, Uganda, and especially the active armed groups themselves from the talks further shows how fragile and superficial the deal was in dealing with the conflict’s complex realities. Claiming the war was “stopped” was a huge exaggeration.

What was the real outcome of the Trump administration’s Armenia-Azerbaijan ‘peace treaty’ regarding justice and security?

Another example showing the transactional nature of Trump’s foreign policy peace deals is the Joint Declaration between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which Trump hailed as a “peace treaty” on August 8th. In reality, this document wasn’t legally binding nor a credible plan for peace. It was a political statement committing both sides to “continue further actions” toward a peace agreement that had already stalled months earlier. The main roadblock—Azerbaijan’s refusal to sign unless Armenia adopted a new constitution—remains. This process could take years, far outlasting any temporary U.S. administrative interest and leaving the region in uncertainty.

The centerpiece of this declaration was an investment agreement, dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP). This deal gave Washington exclusive development rights to an Armenian transit corridor, linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave. This route aligned with Azerbaijan’s long-standing goals to connect the Turkic world, complete a Middle Corridor between China and Europe, and secure an outlet for its oil and gas. For Armenia, the hope was that U.S. investment would provide temporary security in a challenging neighborhood. However, this hope rests on shaky ground. Azerbaijan has occupied significant Armenian territory since the 2020 ceasefire, and its President Ilham Aliyev has openly threatened to seize the TRIPP corridor (which Azerbaijan calls the “Zangezur” corridor) by force. He’s backed by a modernized military and has shown a disregard for international law. Armenia, on the other hand, has little leverage, with traditional allies unwilling to intervene and Russia having largely stepped back from its peacekeeping role in the Caucasus after its invasion of Ukraine. The EU border monitoring mission is the last external presence, yet Azerbaijan pushed for a provision in the deal that would require its withdrawal, further reducing international oversight. You can explore how important safety features are in other contexts here.

Perhaps the most significant oversight in this Armenia Azerbaijan peace deal is the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh. This contested region had been the heart of conflict for over three decades. In 2023, Azerbaijan forcibly displaced the entire ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh through a brutal 10-month blockade and a subsequent military campaign—an act widely considered ethnic cleansing. While Trump himself criticized the Biden administration’s inaction at the time, his own brokered deal effectively validated Azerbaijan’s actions. It failed to secure any provisions for the rights or return of the displaced population. Through a specific clause in the agreement, Azerbaijan successfully pressured Armenia to drop its international legal cases, denying Nagorno-Karabakh’s 150,000 victims justice and international legal avenues. The deal also completely ignored the International Court of Justice’s mandate for the safe return of displaced Armenians, a directive Azerbaijan has actively obstructed. At the same time, Azerbaijan has rushed to resettle the region with its own population and continues to demolish Armenian monasteries and cultural sites. Furthermore, 23 Armenian political prisoners remain unlawfully detained by Azerbaijan, another crucial human rights issue left unaddressed. These serious omissions, combined with the total lack of security guarantees from the United States or other international players, make this “peace” incredibly fragile. Long-term reconciliation feels out of reach, overshadowed by American investment interests and geopolitical calculations that seem to overlook fundamental human rights and justice.

What are the potential global impacts of transactional peace initiatives?

The way these Trump peace deals played out hints at some worrying possibilities for future attempts at resolving conflicts. Trump has suggested ideas for the United States to “take over” and “level” the Gaza Strip, aiming to turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East.” Experts have widely condemned this as a “crime against humanity.” A bigger, proposed 20-point peace plan for Gaza also focuses on a “Trump economic development plan” centered on “thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East” and a “special economic zone” with preferred tariffs. Again, the emphasis is on economic rewards over real humanitarian and political solutions. Similarly, regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, earlier proposals from the Trump administration suggested that continued U.S. military support would depend on access to Ukrainian minerals. Such a deal would look less like a commitment to an ally and more like extortion, highlighting a transactional mindset that could have serious global consequences. We can explore other examples of innovation in various fields here, which often have their own set of implications.

These potential future applications show a consistent pattern: economic gain and geopolitical leverage are prioritized above self-determination, human rights, and the tough, detailed work of peacebuilding. When peace is seen through such a narrow, practical lens, the chances of making existing grievances worse, creating new injustices, and fostering constant instability become much higher. This kind of approach often fails to address the deep-seated issues that fuel conflict, merely covering them up with a promise of economic opportunity, which ultimately isn’t sustainable.

What lessons can we learn for building lasting peace from Trump’s foreign policy?

While everyone wants to negotiate and build peace, the experience of Trump’s peace deals offers a clear lesson: there’s no simple fix for long-standing conflicts. You can’t just buy peace with mineral and real estate agreements. The problems with these frameworks are already clear, with increased violence in the DRC and a lack of justice in Armenia-Azerbaijan. For peace initiatives to truly last and be fair, they need to move away from a transactional model and embrace an inclusive, all-encompassing approach.

Here are some key takeaways for achieving genuinely sustainable peace:

• Involve everyone locally: Future agreements must genuinely include all local groups, even marginalized communities and armed factions. Their voices and needs need to be at the center of discussions. Without local buy-in, peace deals are bound to fail.
• Ensure independent checks: Strong, independent third-party verification and enforcement are crucial. They ensure promises are kept, hold everyone accountable, prevent abuses, and guarantee compliance.
• Tackle complex root causes: Solutions must directly address the many deep-seated reasons for conflict—such as ethnic tensions, land disputes, government failures, and historical grievances—instead of just putting a band-aid on them with economic incentives. A complete understanding is vital.
• Hold accountable those who do wrong: Predatory actors should face consequences for past wrongs, not be rewarded with resource-driven peace deals that legitimize aggression and injustice. Justice is a cornerstone of lasting peace.
• Prioritize justice and human rights: Peace cannot truly flourish without justice, especially for conflict victims, and without strong protection of human rights. Any deal that overlooks these basic principles is inherently flawed and won’t last.

These tasks aren’t easy or straightforward; if they were, peace would have taken hold long ago. But they are absolutely essential. The transactional “peace theater” seen under the Trump administration did little to advance these critical components, leaving behind a legacy of shaky agreements and unresolved tensions that continue to affect millions. Moving forward, we urgently need to rethink what true peace means—and how to achieve it—on the global stage.