How Allies Can Outmaneuver Trump’s Divide and Conquer Tactics

The tendency among some foreign allies to dismiss or ignore President Donald Trump is creating a dangerous complacency that may inadvertently nourish authoritarianism. While some leaders believe that the president can be managed through bilateral placation or simply ignored, evidence from recent geopolitical clashes suggests that only unified, collective action among middle powers can effectively neutralize his divide-and-conquer strategies.

The Cost of Bilateral Submission in Australia

Australia serves as a primary example of the risks associated with attempting to navigate the Trump administration through individual concessions. In October 2025, during a bilateral meeting between President Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the president expressed dissatisfaction with social media posts made in 2020 by Kevin Rudd, the Australian Ambassador to the United States.

During the encounter, Trump told Rudd, “I don’t like you either, and I probably never will,” and pressured Prime Minister Albanese to terminate Rudd’s appointment. Although Albanese initially maintained that Rudd would complete his four-year term, the ambassador eventually departed his post at least a year early. While the public narrative suggested the departure was voluntary—with Rudd returning to his role as President of the Asia Society in New York—the move followed direct pressure from the U.S. President.

Following the exit, Albanese emphasized the strength of the bilateral relationship, stating, “Australia and the United States are the closest of friends and allies, and this will never change.”

The Rise of Populism Down Under

Analysts suggest that the vacuum created by fracturing conservative parties in Australia is being filled by populist movements mirroring Trump’s politics. According to reporting from The New York Times, One Nation, an anti-immigration party, recently won its first seat in the lower house of the Australian Parliament through a special election. The winning candidate, David Farley, is described as a significant force within the agribusiness sector.

Rob Prugue, a fellow at the University of Technology Sydney, noted that both the center-right and left are fracturing in Australia, with the Nationals splitting from the Liberals. This populist momentum has been bolstered by major financial backers, including financier Angus Aitken and Gina Rinehart, Australia’s wealthiest woman, both of whom met with President Trump at Mar-A-Lago in the spring of 2026.

Canada’s Shift Toward Collective Diplomacy

In contrast to the Australian experience, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney demonstrated a successful pivot toward a multilateral strategy. Carney initially attempted to placate the U.S. President and reprimanded Ontario Premier Doug Ford for criticizing Trump’s trade policies. However, by late January 2026, Carney reversed this approach.

The shift occurred after President Trump threatened economic sanctions and military measures against Denmark and Greenland. In response, Carney called for the creation of a “third pole of geopolitical diplomacy,” unifying Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

This new strategy rejected the forced choice between aligning with the United States or China. Instead, Carney argued that middle powers must band together to protect shared interests and avoid the demands of what he termed a “predatory hegemon.”

This unified wall of resistance resulted in a complete cessation of the president’s threats against Greenland and Denmark. Observers noted that once Trump encountered a barrier he could not overcome, he simply moved on, leading some to describe him as the “Roomba President” due to his tendency to bounce off obstacles and change direction.

The Mechanics of Divide-and-Conquer

The contrasting outcomes in Australia and Canada highlight a specific tactical pattern used by the Trump administration. As outlined in the book Trump’s Ten Commandments, the president instinctively views unified coalitions—such as NATO, the EU, or NAFTA—as threats to his authority. His natural impulse is to set allies against one another, such as pitting France against Germany or Canada against Mexico, to position himself as the sole arbiter.

Leaders who attempt to negotiate bilaterally often fall into a trap described as “Maximizing Leverage by Starting with a Punch in the Face.” This involves a maximalist opening strike—such as the sudden military alerts against Greenland—designed to disorient targets so they accept unfavorable deals simply to survive.

The Canadian example suggests that the only effective antidote to this bullying is collective action. By raising the geopolitical costs of disruption through a unified front, allied leaders can constrain the president’s ability to drive wedges between nations.