By Anurag Mishra and Pedro Mendes - US desk

Non-interventionism is generally regarded and commonly understood as a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in the foreign relations or internal affairs of other countries. The United Nations makes the observance of the principle incumbent upon member states by including it in the UN Charter under Article 2.4. Nevertheless, in Morgenthaun's imagination, bigger states arm-twisting or even dominating the external and internal affairs of smaller states is rather unexceptional. The Banana Republic phenomenon may have become an old cliché, yet it remains a metaphorical reality in the present day. In contrast to small, powerless states being dictated by superpowers, there are also instances of more robust and formidable countries having to navigate a more powerful and demanding ally. This diplomatic overreach differs from direct threats or confrontations with adversaries; instead, it involves unsolicited initiatives that may carry consequences.

The rise of Donald Trump to the presidency and the range of diplomatic strategies he employed present a notable example of diplomatic overreach, or, if we may say so, interventionism by other means. Whether this on-camera diplomacy by Donald Trump is a calculated maneuver or simply part of his unconventional approach remains to be studied.

Cases in Point

Alluding to Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and his work, albeit through a different lens than wartime scenarios vis-à-vis the current context, it is possible to parallel a conceptual imperial presidency that leads to diplomatic overreach. We can observe similarities in the growing presidential primacy in foreign policy, concurrently with the use of unilateral tools, such as cutting foreign aid, exiting international organisations, issuing tariffs, and a considerable number of executive orders.

Under the constant framing of a looming threat, be it economic, migrant related, whether foreign or domestic, this narrative paves the way for this unilateral strategy. Bolstered by the placement of loyalists in institutions, such as the Foreign Service, this executive unilateralism fuels diplomatic overreach such as signaling Canada to become a US state. This example erodes the trust between allies, heightening tariff tensions between the two and giving the impression to other countries that the US may view friendly states as subordinate, reducing its credibility as a partner that respects sovereignty, and further raising security concerns and public perception issues.

This diplomatic overreach can again be exemplified in Trump’s call for the release of Bolsonaro. Trump’s public support for Bolsonaro’s release could influence Brazil’s international alignments, including its engagement with BRICS. This raises questions about respect for national sovereignty and undermines the US position when it later invokes non-interference or the rule of law.

Again, the call to the President of Israel to pardon Netanyahu can be viewed as a challenge to Israel’s judicial independence and sovereignty, weakening the alliance between the two. It can strengthen domestic opposition by showing Netanyahu as reliant on foreign assistance. Even if the narrative of “saving Israel” serves Netanyahu and the US geopolitical interests in the short term, it highlights Trump’s diplomatic overreach.

Interventionism V. Diplomacy

In international relations, interventionism refers to the intentional involvement of one state in the internal or external affairs of another, whether through military invasion, economic coercion, or political manipulation, to promote security, values, or influence. Powerful states often use interventionist strategies to secure zones of influence and proactively shape global outcomes. The creation of buffer states, client states, and banana republics exemplifies how interventionism operates beyond overt military force. A buffer state serves as a geopolitical buffer between rival powers; a client state functions under the economic or military dominance of a patron; and the term “banana republic” describes countries whose economic and political systems are subordinated to foreign strategic or business interests, often accompanied by interventionism.

By contrast, diplomacy ostensibly uses negotiation, persuasion, and representation rather than coercion. However, diplomacy itself harbors a covert element, namely, intelligence gathering, back-channel negotiations, and subtle influence campaigns, which buttress the art of statecraft.

In recent years, Trump’s foreign policy has illustrated how interventionism and diplomacy merge on the spectrum of influence, giving birth to a lesser-seen phenomenon of “Overt Diplomacy” or “Interference, not Intervention”. Interestingly, the countries on the receiving end of Trump’s interference aren’t meek bananas or clients, but powerful countries and formidable allies.

President Trump’s attempts in Brazil, where he publicly defended former President Jair Bolsonaro, threatened 50 % tariffs on Brazilian goods if legal proceedings continued, and in Israel, where he intervened in the legal process of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by publicly calling for his corruption trial to be canceled or pardoned, and reversing sanctions on Israeli settler groups, moves that have been interpreted by some observers undermining judicial independence, put across a rarely seen act of public and overt diplomacy. The reason the American president has chosen to conduct his business in public view is that this unique brand of diplomacy appears to serve both domestic and international political purposes. Such public interventions allow him to project strength, command global attention, and consolidate internal support, even when legal or normative costs mount.

Conclusion

The Trumpian model of “Overt Diplomacy” evidenced interesting aspects, merging both appeal and coercion. Usually shielded from public displays, these attempts at interference reverse that trend and have both domestic and foreign consequences, conveying the image of assertive leadership. Aimed not at rivals, but at traditional allies, it walks a fine line, risking old alliances while balancing them with short-term political gains. However, the consequences of this trade-off remain uncertain.