Editor's note: Ankit Prasad is a CGTN biz commentator. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Few leaders have been as outspoken about their appreciation for "tough negotiators" as the current President of the US. Even before his first election win in 2016, Donald Trump had pitched negotiation expertise as one of the biggest assets he'd bring to the table for the American people. In his very first political speech in 2015, while announcing his intention to run for the White House, he'd said "I know the best negotiators in the world. I'd put them one for each country. Believe me, folks, we'd do very well." Ten years on, as the US government enters its third shutdown under his watch and industries at home and abroad grapple with day-to-day uncertainties, it's debatable who those negotiation skills have helped and whom they've hurt.

The curious concept of a US government "shutdown"

At 12:01 am local time on Wednesday in the US, the federal government entered a partial shutdown. This state of governance, which is somewhat unique to the US, was reached after the US Senate adjourned on Tuesday without reaching a deal on extending federal funding for seven weeks. The nub of the issue is that Democrats want Republicans to make certain concessions on healthcare subsidies, failing which they are threatening to filibuster and block the legislation which requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate. While Trump's Republicans control both chambers of Congress, they currently hold only a 55-45 majority in the senate, leaving them short of the votes needed to overcome any filibuster.

The thing about US government shutdowns is they come in all shapes and sizes. Several have been resolved within hours, while a few have stretched into weeks. Donald Trump, for instance, presided over two shutdowns during his first term. While the first lasted just three days, the second, triggered by a disagreement over funding for his high-profile Mexico-US border wall, ran for an unprecedented 35 days during December 2018-January 2019.

During a shutdown, federal agencies cease a number of activities and place certain staff on furlough. So-called "essential staff" and operations generally continue, such as Airport ATCs and other ground operations, immigration and customs control, FBI investigators, CIA officers. There's no sense of when they'll receive their next paycheck and back-pay, however, while the hundreds of thousands of furloughed staff simply have to do without pay.

Several other services scale back or cease entirely: Medicaid and Medicare may function with delays, while national parks and Smithsonian Museums may take a call on an ad-hoc basis. During the previous 35-day shutdown in 2018-19, some prominent parks' decision to remain open with reduced staff was criticized over safety concerns. The same shutdown also led to the bizarre spectacle of Trump serving a visiting champion football team a banquet of McDonald's and other assorted fast-food as the White House staff was furloughed and not in a position to dish out the regular elaborate dinner fare. 

President Trump's "Shutdown" role: Negotiator-in-chief

This time, the repercussions could be more dire—with several departments already short-staffed from DOGE cuts and now receiving instructions to lay off even more employees during the shutdown. All together, the shutdown, as well as the direct and indirect consequences it has for people in the US, does not paint a rosy picture of administrative effectiveness or efficiency. And at the centre of it all is the President.

Shutdowns are generally ended when a deal is struck, the route to which is a negotiation. Trump, as both President and the most important Republican leader, is well aware of his prominent role in ending any impasse. This is likely why he held a meeting with the leaders of Congress on Monday, but rather than fostering consensus and breaking the deadlock, he instead resorted to posting a fake-video mocking and trolling Democratic heads—not exactly the best way to endear yourself to the other side, much less to suggest you care for the repercussions of the shutdown!

US policy has been neither artful nor subtle

And yet, given what we've seen of Trump's "Art of the Deal" following his return to the White House, it's par the course. Since the oath-taking in January, the US administration has made a habit of resorting to entrenched positions, strong rhetoric, disrespectful outbursts and a "my way or the highway" attitude. Relations with entire countries, established trade flows, long-standing deals, and bilateral arrangements between other nations are now considered rife for US interference and 'negotiation'. Most problematic of all, strong words are often followed by ham-fisted actions (or in the shutdown's case, inaction), necessitating hasty retreats after triggering chaos.

The recent H-1B kerfuffle was a prime example, where people were threatened with their lives being upended and forced to rush back to the US lest they not be allowed to enter after the deadline. Videos shot aboard outbound planes taxiing on US runways show the desperation of passengers to exit before they leave American soil. That policy was scaled back and clarified after causing mayhem at a human and corporate level.

The flagship "Reciprocal Tariffs" are perhaps the best example of callous, citizen-unfriendly policy. Not only was the calculation methodology flawed, but by simply being a function of the US's trade deficits, it also betrayed the real objective—to force American goods down countries' throats, whether it made economic sense or not. Unfortunately for the US administration, the tariffs are a double-edged sword and impact US businesses and citizens as well. And after facing meltdown in the markets and warnings of hamstrung corporates, Trump quickly transitioned to using tariffs as more or less a negotiating tool.

The shutdown of the US government is just the latest in a growing list of chaotic events the Trump administration seems willing to trigger to get a deal on its terms. Only increasingly, the rebound is being felt even more keenly at home. One would imagine "short-term pain for long-term gain" cannot be the perpetual mantra of an administration. Sooner or later, people will ask whether the White House has become confused about whom it's negotiating for and whom it's holding ransom! And that, surely, cannot be the art of the deal.