Doha Forum: Foreign Leaders Say Trump's Domestic Struggles Haven't Dented His Global Power

DOHA, Qatar — Inside the United States, President Donald Trump is wrestling with rising consumer prices, fallout from the Epstein files and signs of dissent within his own party. Travel 100 miles, 1,000 miles or—as I recently did—about 7,000 miles beyond U.S. borders, and those domestic troubles, and the sliding poll numbers that accompany them, matter far less.

Abroad, Trump is still widely viewed as a colossal figure: someone who can topple a government or, alternatively, the only leader who might resolve another nation’s crisis. That was the prevailing impression among foreign officials and global elites I spoke with at this year’s Doha Forum, an influential conference focused on diplomacy and geopolitics.

Over sweets, coffee and the murmur of nearby conversations, attendees debated whether Trump’s domestic difficulties could push him to take riskier actions overseas—some said they hoped he would. At the same time, key MAGA figures contend he is already too focused on foreign policy.

“He doesn’t need Capitol Hill to get work done from a foreign policy standpoint,” an Arab official said, noting Mr. Trump’s well-established indifference toward Congress. Vuk Jeremić, the former Serbian foreign minister, told me, “Whether people like him or not, I don't think that there is any doubt that he is a very, very consequential global actor.” He was not alone in using the word “consequential.”

Consequential in this context is descriptive rather than moral: a leader can be consequential whether they save or destroy. The label underscores the unique reach of the U.S. presidency—America’s wealth, weapons and global presence amplify any president’s impact.

U.S. presidents typically enjoy more freedom to act unilaterally on foreign policy than on domestic issues. They often lean into international initiatives when their domestic influence wanes. That pattern helps explain why some administrations reserve major diplomatic moves for moments when they face fewer political constraints.

In the opening months of his current term, Mr. Trump has surprised global audiences repeatedly—from cutting U.S. foreign aid to ordering strikes on Iran-linked facilities. His positions have sometimes seemed mercurial: fluctuating on Russia’s war in Ukraine, on questions about Palestinian displacement from Gaza, and on whether he should seek a Nobel Peace Prize even as he courts confrontation with other states such as Venezuela.

At the Sheraton resort in Doha, Mr. Trump caused a stir by unveiling a new National Security Strategy ahead of the forum. Many delegates were taken aback by its sweeping critique of U.S. allies, including language that suggested Europe faces “civilizational erasure.” The document prompted a moderator to ask the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, whether Mr. Trump sees Europe as “the enemy.”

Nonetheless, some foreign officials welcomed Mr. Trump’s disruptive approach, arguing it could shake a calcified international order that has left many countries behind. Several African leaders, in particular, urged more U.S. involvement in resolving conflicts on the continent—especially in Sudan—and said they were willing to overlook crude rhetoric if it produced results.

Mr. Trump has claimed to have ended “seven or eight wars,” an assertion that diplomats described as exaggerated: some of the situations he cites were not full-scale wars, and some truces remain fragile. Still, foreign officials told me to lower the bar: peace is a process, they said, and if Mr. Trump can accelerate negotiations or force parties to the table, that progress can matter.

“You should be proud of your president,” one African official told me, asking for anonymity to speak frankly about sensitive diplomacy. Diplomats also praised the administration’s economic lens—wealthy Gulf states such as Qatar have benefited from a commercial-first approach, and others are eager to participate.

Zimbabwe’s finance minister, Mthuli Ncube, called the focus on business ties with Africa “very progressive” and asked whether future U.S. presidents, of either party, would adopt similar creativity in engagement.

Those at the forum were mindful that Mr. Trump responds to praise but sometimes respects those who challenge him, so interactions are handled with care. Kaja Kallas publicly downplayed the strategy’s rhetoric against Europe, a pragmatic stance that reflected the U.S.-EU power imbalance; privately, another European official called the accusations “very disturbing.”

Few senior U.S. officials attended the Doha Forum; notable American participants included Matt Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, and Donald Trump Jr., who is influential though not an official.

Some diplomats said Mr. Trump’s pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize could act as an incentive to pursue high-profile peacemaking—even if outcomes are uneven. A British diplomat suggested that musings about legacy and the afterlife might temper reckless choices.

Even Hillary Clinton offered a measured observation: there is “something to be said for the dramatic and bold action” Mr. Trump takes, she said, but warned that such actions require extensive follow-up—work that diplomats and Foreign Service officers traditionally provide—to produce lasting results.

For the remainder of his presidency—more than three years at present—Mr. Trump will retain significant authority that extends beyond U.S. borders. Foreign officials at Doha agreed that, however contentious his domestic standing, his global power makes his moves consequential—and that both partners and rivals must plan for the uncertainty that comes with it.