Recent reports by The New York Times portray an uncommon structural shift in US foreign policy, in which the center of decision-making has moved from official institutions to a limited, personal and fully trusted group around Donald Trump. Under this model, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have emerged as key actors on files such as Gaza, Iran and Ukraine — figures shaped not by diplomatic bureaucracy but by a transaction-driven logic.

In the newspaper’s account of Gaza negotiations, diplomacy is depicted as unfolding not at the State Department but in private estates in Miami and through direct, informal contacts. Kushner’s core advice is simple: “Get the yes first, details later.” The phrase reflects the essence of Trump’s foreign policy outlook — agreement as a starting point, not an endpoint.

The same pattern appears in other dossiers. Reports indicate that Kushner and Witkoff have held talks with Iranian representatives in Geneva, while parallel channels have remained active with Russia and Ukraine. These moves have been accompanied by simultaneous pressure — from military threats against Iran to intensified economic pressure on Russia’s energy networks. The result is a blend of negotiation, coercion and power projection, a model Trump considers more effective than institutional diplomacy.

Bypassing Bureaucracy: Distrust or Strategy?

Since his first presidential term, Trump has shown deep distrust toward the State Department and the National Security Council. In his view, these institutions are slow, cautious and at times obstacles to rapid decision-making. His repeated references to a “deep state” suggest that this skepticism is not merely emotional but part of his political worldview.

His reliance on Kushner and Witkoff fits within that framework. The two not only enjoy personal loyalty but also understand foreign policy the way Trump prefers: as a sphere of bargaining. In this perspective, international relations are not governed primarily by norms and rules but by market-style transactions. Supporters argue that actors such as Russia or certain regional powers respond more to power and deals than to legal language. Direct messaging from the president’s inner circle, they say, reduces misunderstanding and speeds up decisions.

The Gaza file carries symbolic weight for advocates of this approach. Kushner and Witkoff reportedly succeeded in persuading Israel to accept the first phase of a plan, shifting attention to the “positive part of the agreement.” That experience has reinforced Trump’s confidence in the small-circle model. Critics, however, warn that removing layers of expert input from complex issues such as Iran’s nuclear program or the war in Ukraine could lead to dangerous oversimplification.

“Get Yes First”: A Crisis-Management Philosophy

The logic behind “get the yes first” rests on breaking psychological stalemates. In many prolonged negotiations, excessive focus on details pushes the core agreement into the background. Kushner and Witkoff aim to secure an initial consent to reshape the political environment, then negotiate specifics later. On Iran, this could mean establishing a broad framework over nuclear limitations, with sanctions relief and inspection details addressed in subsequent phases. In Ukraine, the goal could be a halt to fighting, even if final status questions over contested territories are deferred.

The model offers advantages such as speed, flexibility and the ability to deliver immediate political gains — qualities aligned with Trump’s style. Yet the risks are significant. Partial agreements without institutional backing or domestic consensus can prove fragile in implementation. The US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement demonstrated that personal diplomacy, absent durable institutional support, has limited longevity.

Ultimately, Trump’s foreign policy signals a form of “privatized power,” where major decisions are shaped not within formal institutions but by a small circle close to the president. Whatever the outcome of ongoing negotiations, this shift is likely to leave a lasting imprint on how US governance approaches foreign affairs.