If this era has not seen the election of
Donald Trump
If they had lived long enough to see Donald Trump return for a second stint as U.S. president towards the end of last year, and witness his disgraceful tactics in politics and diplomacy, they would have passed away believing with satisfaction that America remained flawless, unbeatable, top-notch, and a paragon of virtue. During his initial tenure—which ended prematurely due to Joe Biden’s electoral victory—President Trump attempted to curb some of his most objectionable traits and behaviors. Despite this effort, he continued to be just as unpleasant and intolerable, though he strived to limit his brutality to within national boundaries. Even then, these outbursts were often feeble and unimpressive, leading many experts to reserve judgment about his true intentions. However, barely three months into his new term, it became abundantly clear that nobody—not even those considered exceptionally talented—is capable of reaching the extent of his malevolence.
He has shown an unparalleled ability in one particular aspect: treating heads of state condescendingly, excluding those who are dictators. Moreover, he excels at executing vicious diplomatic traps, particularly cruel ones. During a visit to the White House two months prior seeking assistance against Russian aggression, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky became the inaugural victim of President Donald Trump’s humiliating tactics. Rather than receiving support, he faced ridicule, mockery, and intimidation, eventually being forced from the Oval Office. Despite putting up a commendable fight, since he required aid himself, Zelensky departed feeling deeply distressed.
The encounter started poorly when President Trump provoked his guest. When it appeared that Zelensky might navigate through the ordeal gracefully using superior rhetoric over the disjointed American leader, a strategically placed reporter posed a vexing query regarding the visitor’s “unseemly attire.” This challenge also failed to unsettle him. Noticing their target slipping free amidst such adept handling, Vice President Mike Pence added insult to injury with a spiteful remark directed towards a foreign dignitary—a move beneath the dignity expected of a VP. Thus, the trap set in February 2025 succeeded completely.
Just three months later, almost eager for further confrontation, another trap was set for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. He had visited the United States at their request, aiming to persuade President Donald Trump that no white genocide occurred in South Africa and none were planned. When Ramaphosa went to the White House following the controversy involving Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, he clearly placed excessive faith in his ability to remain composed, articulate effectively, and defend himself logically against accusations of government-backed crimes.
This turned out to be a significant error. While Zelensky faced issues with Trump due to neither lacking eloquence nor failing to maintain composure under pressure, Ramaphosa should have understood that Trump employs reprehensible methods whenever dealing with those perceived as superior or when facing defeat in arguments. Additionally, Trump tends to close off mentally; once forming an opinion—often hastily—he becomes immovable and relentless in his stance.
However, President Ramaphosa, possibly troubled by the false narratives about a non-existent white genocide promoted by Mr. Trump, believed that presenting facts and truth during his visit to the White House might sway his host. Unfortunately, his host doesn’t operate based on factual evidence but instead revels in deception and fabrication. The more President Ramaphosa showcased depth and insight, the more irritable President Trump grew, eventually springing into action with misleading videos and photos suggesting supposed genocidal burials. This left Mr. Ramaphosa stunned—a stark contrast from how President Zelensky responded confidently and aggressively. Overwhelmed by fabricated information sourced from within the United States, President Ramaphosa even questioned himself momentarily, wondering hesitantly if these alleged mass graves were actually confirmed by Mr. Trump. When asked, however, the U.S. president dismissed such inquiries dismissively as they aligned with decisions he had firmly resolved upon. Not until addressing reporters away from the influence of his unpredictable guest did President Ramaphosa regain composure. Throughout this encounter, despite managing admirably overall, engaging logically proved pointless against someone like President Trump who disregards verifiable data altogether.
Visiting the American president is largely fruitless unless you’re either an unwavering dictator who has won his favor or a leader bearing gifts and harboring ulterior motives. Since the incidents involving Presidents Zelensky and Ramaphosa, Mr. Trump’s intimidating approach has become crystal clear to everyone globally. Few leaders would now dare venture near the White House due to these events. This is particularly relevant for Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu; he ought to take heed from this situation. Instead of being driven by fear, he should use good judgment to avoid meeting with the U.S. president directly. Engaging closely with someone like him serves little purpose. No matter what evidence President Tinubu might present—such as proving every member of his cabinet and military leadership is Christian—he wouldn’t change Mr. Trump’s mind about alleged genocides committed against Christians in Nigeria.
Mr. Trump could easily manipulate media coverage during their encounter, prompting difficult questions designed to provoke controversy. Consequently, chaos may ensue. Therefore, besides avoiding direct interaction with President Trump altogether, President Tinubu must actively prevent invitations over the next four years when Trump remains in power. Prevention is always preferable to regret. The British proverb wisely states: “Discretion is the better part of valor.”
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).
