When President Donald Trump strode into the newly rebranded Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2025, flanked by the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), he was ready to claim another victory for his self-styled legacy as a peacemaker. The occasion: the signing of a peace agreement designed to end decades of violence between the two Central African neighbors. Yet, as the ceremony unfolded—complete with the incongruous soundtrack of “Live and Let Die”—the contradictions and complexities of America’s current foreign policy were on full display.
Despite the celebratory mood, the reality on the ground in Central Africa remained grim. According to CNN, vicious fighting between Rwanda-backed M23 rebels and Congolese soldiers continued even as the ink dried on the peace deal. President Trump, however, was undeterred, proclaiming, “A great day for Africa, a great day for the world.” Rwandan President Paul Kagame praised Trump’s approach as “even-handed” and “never taking sides,” adding, “He orients us toward the future, not the past, emphasizing that the dividend of peace is prosperity and investment … President Trump’s approach is pragmatic. The process has not become an end in itself.”
The irony of the venue was not lost on observers. The Institute, once the US Institute for Peace, was shuttered and gutted by the Trump administration. Its building, emblazoned with Trump’s name, had been controversially seized—a move a judge has since ruled illegal, with an appeal still pending, CNN reported. At the ceremony, Trump thanked Secretary of State Marco Rubio for getting the building “ready,” a euphemism for the overhaul that had stripped the institution of its original mission and staff.
This event encapsulated the contradictions of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, which has simultaneously threatened constitutional norms, alienated traditional allies, and dismantled global institutions, even as it pursues high-profile peace deals. As The Conversation UK noted, the administration’s penchant for replacing seasoned diplomats with dealmakers—such as special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—has become a hallmark of its approach to complex international crises.
While Trump was lauded in Washington for his peacemaking, US military actions elsewhere were drawing fierce scrutiny. Both CNN and The Conversation UK reported on a series of controversial attacks on alleged drug trafficking boats. On September 2, 2025, US forces struck a Venezuelan vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 people—including two survivors reportedly killed while calling for assistance. The Pentagon faced bipartisan criticism, with Democrats suggesting the follow-up strike could constitute a war crime. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth attempted to deflect responsibility onto Admiral Frank M. Bradley, citing the “fog of war,” but the incident has become a flashpoint in debates over the legality of US military operations.
Trump’s foreign policy narrative is peppered with claims of having ended eight major conflicts, including those between Egypt and Ethiopia, India and Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Serbia and Kosovo, Israel and Hamas, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yet, as CNN pointed out, many of these claims are contested. In some cases, such as the dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia, no active war was underway; in others, like India and Pakistan, local officials have downplayed US involvement. Nevertheless, Trump’s efforts have not been without substance. His administration played a significant role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and his envoys—Witkoff and Kushner—have been credited with helping maintain that fragile peace.
Trump’s style—favoring direct, businesslike negotiations over traditional diplomacy—has yielded mixed results. In Ukraine, for instance, his team’s recent attempt to broker peace with Russia has drawn sharp criticism. According to The Conversation UK, in early December 2025, the US president sent Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, bypassing career diplomats. Putin’s aide, Yuri Ushakov, described the talks as “useful, constructive and meaningful,” but admitted, “We are no closer to resolving the crisis in Ukraine.”
The substance of the Miami-drafted 28-point peace proposal, developed jointly by Russia and the US, was swiftly rejected by Ukraine and its European allies. The deal called for Ukraine to cede the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, relinquish NATO ambitions, and limit its armed forces—terms Kyiv found unacceptable. Putin, meanwhile, accused European allies of sabotaging peace with “absolutely unacceptable” demands, while hinting that some American proposals were more palatable. Intigam Mamedov, a conflict expert quoted by The Conversation UK, suggested that Russia’s long game is to exploit divisions between the US and Europe, prolonging the war to drive a wedge between allies.
The nearly four-year-old war in Ukraine has also exposed rifts within Europe over how to support Kyiv. As The Conversation UK reported, a €90 billion plan to aid Ukraine is mired in disagreement: Belgium opposes leveraging frozen Russian assets, fearing liability if loans go unpaid, while Hungary and Slovakia resist both funding Ukrainian defense and an EU plan to halt Russian LNG imports by 2027. Experts warn that forcing Ukraine to cede territory would violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for redrawing borders by force—a return, as historian Roman Birke put it, to a world where “might becomes right.”
The peace process in Ukraine has drawn comparisons to the Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war 30 years ago. Those talks, led by robust US and NATO intervention, produced a detailed agreement that, while imperfect, has largely held for three decades. Security experts Stefan Wolff and Argyro Kartsonaki, writing in The Conversation UK, argue that even flawed peace deals can be preferable to endless, unwinnable wars. Yet, they caution that current US leadership lacks the clarity and resolve that characterized the Dayton process.
Amid these high-stakes negotiations and military controversies, Trump’s public persona oscillates between statesman and showman. At the Rwanda-DRC ceremony, he openly mused about the economic benefits for the US, referencing Congo’s rich reserves of cobalt and coltan—minerals critical to modern technology. “They’ve spent a lot of time killing each other, and now, they’re going to spend a lot of time hugging, holding hands and taking advantage of the United States economically, like every other country does,” Trump quipped, according to CNN.
In a final twist, FIFA President Gianni Infantino attended the peace signing, ready to award the first-ever FIFA Peace Prize in Washington. Trump, ever the showman, couldn’t resist a nod to his own ambitions, joking about the Nobel Peace Prize and hinting at his desire for global recognition.
As the world watches these unfolding dramas—from the halls of the Trump Institute of Peace to the battlefields of Ukraine and the Caribbean—the search for lasting solutions continues. Behind the headlines and ceremonies, the hard work of peacemaking remains as fraught and essential as ever.