President Donald Trump's Communication paradox: A case study on the U.S. -Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership
This qualitative study argues that despite President Trump's initially adversarial rhetoric on trade, his direct and unorthodox communication style paradoxically facilitated the pragmatic strengthening of the U.S.–Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership, illustrating the complex interplay between populist discourse and bilateral diplomatic outcomes.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine you're watching a high-stakes game of chess, but instead of a quiet library, the players are shouting their moves through a megaphone on a chaotic street corner. This is the world of political communication, a field that studies how leaders talk to the public and to each other to get things done. In this story, we are looking at a specific type of player: the populist leader. Think of a populist as a politician who acts like a "regular person" fighting against the "fancy experts," often using simple, loud, and emotional language to connect directly with their fans. They also rely heavily on digital diplomacy, which is just a fancy way of saying they use social media apps (like Twitter or Truth Social) to make announcements instantly, skipping the usual slow, polite steps of traditional diplomats. Why does this matter? Because in our modern world, a leader's tweets can change the economy, start trade wars, or accidentally fix broken relationships. We want to know: Can a leader who acts like a stormy, unpredictable hurricane actually help two countries get along better?
This paper dives into a strange and surprising story about President Donald Trump and his relationship with Vietnam. The authors, a team of researchers from Vietnam, looked at how Trump's unique, often aggressive way of talking actually helped strengthen ties between the U.S. and Vietnam, even though it seemed like it should have ruined them. They found a real "paradox": Trump started by yelling about unfair trade deals and threatening huge penalties, but by the end, the two countries had a stronger partnership than before.
Here is how the story plays out, based on the paper's findings:
The Setup: A Trade Tangle
The U.S. and Vietnam were already best friends in business. The U.S. was Vietnam's biggest customer, buying tons of goods. But the U.S. was buying way more than it was selling, creating a massive "trade deficit" (a gap where the U.S. was losing money). The paper notes that by 2024, this gap had swelled to about $122 billion. To President Trump, this wasn't just a number; it was a sign of unfairness. He viewed the U.S. as a victim being taken advantage of.
The Trump Style: The "Shock and Awe" Megaphone
Instead of sending quiet letters behind closed doors, Trump used his social media to shout his demands. He used a style the authors call "populist rhetoric." Imagine a coach who doesn't just call a play but screams at the referee, the other team, and the fans all at once. Trump framed the trade gap as a crisis, blaming Vietnam for "cheating." He threatened to slap a punishing 46% tariff (a tax on imported goods) on everything Vietnam sent to the U.S. This was his "shock" tactic: creating a sense of emergency to force a quick reaction.
The Twist: The Deal That Wasn't
Here is the paradox. You would think that screaming threats and threatening to tax a friend's goods would make them hate you. But it didn't. Vietnam's leaders, who are very good at playing the long game, didn't panic and walk away. Instead, they saw the threat as real and decided to negotiate fast.
The result was a trade deal framework announced in July 2025. It wasn't a perfect friendship treaty, but it was a working agreement.
- The U.S. Win: American goods got duty-free access (zero tax) into Vietnam.
- The Vietnam Concession: Vietnamese goods had to pay a 20% tariff to enter the U.S. (which was better than the threatened 46%, but still a big hit).
- The Hidden Goal: The deal also included a 40% tariff on goods that were "transshipped" (routed through Vietnam to hide that they actually came from China). This revealed that the real target wasn't just Vietnam; it was to pressure China.
Why It Worked: The "Scary but Direct" Effect
The paper suggests that Trump's weird style actually helped because it was so direct. He didn't hide his intentions. When he threatened a 46% tariff, Vietnam knew he might actually do it. This created a "90-day pause" deadline that forced everyone to the table immediately. Vietnam realized that accepting a "sour deal" (the 20% tariff) was better than the "poisoned deal" (the 46% tariff).
The authors argue that Trump's communication acted like a catalyst. His loud, unfiltered demands cut through the usual slow diplomatic noise. While traditional diplomats might have spent years talking politely, Trump's "deal-maker" persona forced a quick resolution. He mixed threats with praise, telling Vietnam's leaders they were great friends while simultaneously threatening to tax their economy. This kept Vietnam off-balance but also signaled that a deal was possible if they made concessions.
The Big Picture: Realism Over Rhetoric
The paper concludes that while Trump's style was chaotic and often rude, it didn't break the relationship because the two countries had too much to lose. Vietnam needed the U.S. market, and the U.S. needed Vietnam as a partner to counter China's influence. The authors suggest that in the digital age, a leader's loud, populist voice can sometimes achieve specific goals faster than quiet diplomacy, but it comes with risks. The relationship survived not because Trump was a "good" communicator in the traditional sense, but because both sides were pragmatic enough to look past the shouting and focus on the money and strategy.
In short, the paper finds that a leader who acts like a storm can sometimes clear the air faster than a gentle breeze, provided the two countries are willing to huddle together and weather the storm to reach a common goal. The U.S.-Vietnam partnership didn't just survive Trump's communication paradox; it grew stronger, proving that sometimes, a little bit of chaos can lead to a very practical agreement. The study notes that these foundations of cooperation were robust enough to withstand Trump's atypical approach, eventually culminating in the formal upgrade to a "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" in 2023 under his successor.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.