Commentary:HowtoNavigateTrump’sOpportunisticDiplomacy

While the release of the Epstein documents has sent shockwaves through the West, a less sensational but geopolitically significant event took place in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio convened the inaugural ministerial meeting on critical minerals at the State Department.

Notably, compared to the 20 founding members of the Trump-led “Board of Peace” created during the Davos forum for the post-war reconstruction of Gaza, this gathering on critical minerals drew representatives from 54 nations — including major Western powers and key resource-rich countries in Latin America and Africa — as well as the European Union.

Observers view the summit as a rare display of Western unity, occurring against a backdrop of Trump’s diplomatic unilateralism and protectionist trade policies that have otherwise alienated traditional allies.

The meeting aimed to reshape the global market for critical minerals and rare earths, seeking to build a secure, diverse, and resilient supply chain for the U.S. and its partners.

Under agreements reached during the session, the U.S. will sign a memorandum of understanding with Japan and the EU within 30 days regarding the joint development, refining, processing and recycling of critical minerals.

The U.S. and Mexico are scheduled to implement a similar action plan within the next 60 days.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who attended the meeting, indicated that the ultimate goal of these accords is to establish “preferential trade zones” for critical mineral resources. Through price floors and tariffs on non-member nations, the administration aims to prevent dumping by external mining powers such as China and break Beijing’s market monopoly.

From the perspective of Washington and its partners, given that China controls approximately 80% to 90% of global capacity for critical minerals like rare earths and cobalt, an aggressive push for supply chain diversification is deemed essential to secure provisions for the U.S. and its allies.

Underscoring this urgency, the U.S. government announced on Feb. 2 — just days before the summit — the creation of a strategic critical minerals reserve. This stockpile will be backed by $10 billion in financing from the Export-Import Bank of the United States and $2 billion from the private sector, functioning as a minerals equivalent to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The first year of Trump’s second term has been characterized by a surge in “America First” policies, exemplified by threats regarding Greenland’s sovereignty and the unauthorized capture of a foreign leader. These actions have caused fissures — and even crises — within the traditional Western alliance unseen in 80 years.

Yet, this aggressive unilateralism has coincided with attempts at minilateralism, such as the “Board of Peace” and the critical minerals summit.

This seemingly contradictory mix offers an opportunity to clarify the diplomatic trajectory of the MAGA movement.

First, largely due to the relative decline of U.S. comprehensive power in the post-Cold War era, Washington cannot unilaterally address today’s multidimensional challenges, which range from climate crises and technological shocks to various traditional and non-traditional threats. Trump’s foreign policy objective remains the absolute maximization of U.S. national interests; thus, any means fitting this principle is viewed by the U.S. as legitimate and “just.”

When the U.S. believes excluding Denmark to dominate Greenland better serves its hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, or that arresting the Venezuelan president without United Nations Security Council or congressional authorization is the optimal path to toppling an anti-American regime, established rules and order are discarded.

However, when Washington finds that seeking the participation of like-minded nations can share the burden while maintaining U.S. leadership, case-by-case cooperation becomes the preferred option.

Therefore, “America First” does not imply “America Alone,” but rather “America Tune-calling.”

Second, under this “America Tune-calling” framework, global governance appears increasingly fragmented and randomized.

Consequently, the administration may exit the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization while simultaneously establishing cooperative mechanisms regarding Gaza and critical minerals.

In short, withdrawing from groups and forming new ones are not mutually exclusive; the choice is based entirely on the strategic judgment of Trump and his inner circle.

In response, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has called for middle powers to band together, while the Global South seeks greater self-reliance.

Third, facing more opportunistic practices from the U.S., China must adjust its diplomatic strategy accordingly.

For instance, the influx of Western dignitaries visiting China earlier this year reflects a softer diplomatic posture from Beijing.

In recent years, China has gradually moved away from a dual-track approach that separated politics from economics in its dealings with the West, emphasizing instead a consistency between the two spheres.

Looking ahead, however, as long as core interests remain unharmed, a degree of “cold politics, hot economics” is permissible. An overly rigid policy risks being counterproductive.