When Donald Trump enters a negotiation, he doesn’t start in the middle — he starts by throwing a grenade into the room.
One of the clearest examples came in late 2018 during the government shutdown over border wall funding. Trump demanded $5.7 billion for a border wall, a project many considered unnecessary, impractical, or symbolic at best. Democrats, holding the House majority, had no intention of funding it. The result? The longest government shutdown in U.S. history — and a masterclass in Trump’s negotiation style.
Let’s break down how Trump’s approach follows a predictable — and intentional — five-step process:
1. Start with an Extreme Position
Trump opened negotiations by demanding full funding for a border wall, threatening a shutdown if he didn’t get it. This is equivalent to someone in a divorce trial demanding 100% of the assets with zero compromise — a position no serious negotiator would expect to succeed. But that’s not the point.
2. Shock and Disrupt
The demand derailed everything. News cycles exploded, politicians scrambled, and government workers went without pay. The chaos wasn’t accidental — it shifted attention and forced everyone to respond to Trump’s terms. The conversation was no longer about whether a wall was the best use of funds. It became, “How much wall are we willing to pay for?”
3. Pull the Negotiation Toward the Anchor
By setting the initial demand so high, any counteroffer automatically appeared like a compromise. Suddenly, $1.3 billion for “border security enhancements” became a middle ground, even though it wasn’t on the table before. Trump’s extreme anchor made smaller, still-controversial amounts of funding seem reasonable by comparison.
4. Normalize the Absurd
The term “border wall” became so normalized in political discourse that even Democratic leaders had to constantly reiterate they wouldn’t support that specific project — which ironically made them appear obstructionist to some Americans. Trump’s language dominated. The absurd idea of a 2,000-mile wall became a serious policy debate.
5. Control the Dialogue
Throughout, Trump controlled the narrative. He positioned himself as the only one “fighting for security,” painting opposition as weak or unpatriotic. He even staged a dramatic walkout from a negotiation meeting, reinforcing his commitment to the original demand. Whether or not he got the full $5.7 billion became irrelevant — the debate started and ended on his terms.
This tactic is why Trump has succeeded in business, branding, and now politics. He doesn’t negotiate in good faith or seek compromise — he reframes the whole conversation by detonating an outrageous opening gambit, then watching the dust settle wherever it falls.
To understand Trump is to understand that absurdity isn’t a flaw — it’s the strategy.
Garrett Epperson lives in Kalispell.