In a dramatic pivot, US president Donald Trump’s announcement on Wednesday of a 90-day pause on the introduction of new tariffs sent ripples through markets and political circles alike. For supporters, it was a shrewd act of brinkmanship; for critics, a humiliating climbdown.
But beyond the headlines lies a broader question that has shadowed Trump’s political career: can the skills honed in the business world – especially deal-making – translate into effective political leadership?
Trump’s entire political brand has been built on his persona as a master negotiator. From the boardroom to the Oval Office, he has portrayed himself as someone who knows how to cut through red tape, bring adversaries to the table and walk away with the upper hand. His latest tariff manoeuvres are being held up by some as evidence of this approach paying off.
It is, in essence, a classic business move – propose, pause, reassess and apply pressure at the optimal moment to extract a better deal.
Yet the pause also invites scrutiny. Is this really the art of the deal – or the politics of retreat?
And more broadly, are the tools of business – decisiveness, negotiation, branding, disruption – effective in the messier, more layered world of politics?
The idea that business skills are transferable to government is not new. We’ve long admired leaders who are results-oriented, confident, and good with numbers. It’s the logic behind bringing chief executives into advisory roles, appointing corporates to state bodies or electing outsiders who promise to “run government like a business”.
It’s appealing in its simplicity – after all, who doesn’t want a leaner, more efficient state?
But the comparison goes only so far. Governments don’t have customers – they have citizens. Politicians don’t just negotiate with partners – they contend with opponents, allies, media, bureaucracy and public sentiment. And unlike in business, the aim isn’t always profit – it’s the public good, an elusive and often subjective target.
This is where the Trump example becomes complicated. His 90-day tariff pause may indeed be a tactical move to reset the board with fellow leaders, ease tensions with Wall Street and give markets room to breathe. But politics is not just about deal-making; it’s about sequencing, vision, and building consensus. Business relies on leverage, politics on legitimacy. One operates largely in private, the other in the full glare of public accountability.
Trump’s tariff strategy may be rooted in business acumen but it is ultimately a political calculation. If politics is to learn from business, it must do so discerningly
That isn’t to say business acumen has no place in politics. Far from it. Strategic thinking, resource management and negotiation are essential tools for any leader. The challenge is how these are applied. In business, a deal can be written off or renegotiated. In politics, a misstep can erode trust, trigger a loss of power, destabilise nations or cost lives.
What we are witnessing in Trump’s pause is not necessarily the arrival of business genius to politics but the application of business theatre – a high-stakes game of pressure that works best when paired with institutions and people that can absorb its shocks. His supporters see a leader unafraid to act boldly, to reassess and to deal. His detractors see unpredictability, short-termism and transactionalism.
And yet, there’s a lesson here for the political class. In a world of rapid information cycles, eroded institutional trust and complex global threats, the agility, clarity and assertiveness that often define successful business leaders can serve as an antidote to political inertia. Voters crave results, not just rhetoric. They respect assuredness, even if they don’t always agree with the agenda. This is, in part, why Trump – and figures like him – continue to resonate.
However, the assumption that a good businessperson will automatically be a good politician is flawed. The skills do overlap – both worlds require negotiation, communication and strategic foresight – but their values and success metrics differ.
A business can afford to be opaque; a government must be transparent. A chief executive can broadly override dissent; a politician must negotiate with it. A brand can pivot overnight; a national policy cannot (outside of the madness of the Trump administration).
So, are we seeing business skills finally being put to work in politics? Perhaps.
But what we’re really seeing is a hybrid model – politics adopting the style of business without always delivering the substance. Deal-making in politics works when it’s backed by principle, informed by diplomacy and aimed at long-term outcomes. Without these, the deals may be done but the consequences can be corrosive.
Trump’s tariff strategy may be rooted in business acumen but it is ultimately a political calculation. If politics is to learn from business it must do so discerningly – borrowing not just the postures of power but the disciplines of vision, accountability and results.
In the end, real leadership – whether in a boardroom or a cabinet room – depends not on the deals you strike but on the trust you build, the people you serve and the future you shape.
Dan Pender is a former government adviser and a public relations consultant
