President-elect Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy and international dealmaking has consistently prioritized personal rapport with world leaders, a strategy most visible in his evolving relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. As the transition team prepares for the upcoming administration, observers are scrutinizing the potential for transactional diplomacy between Washington and Ankara, particularly regarding how the United States categorizes groups operating within Turkey’s sphere of influence.
The core of the diplomatic tension lies in the classification of non-state actors. While U.S. federal law maintains strict definitions regarding terrorist organizations—often based on the criteria established by the Department of State—Turkish leadership has frequently operated under a broader interpretation of security threats. This divergence creates a significant friction point for the incoming administration, as the U.S. must balance its strategic NATO partnership with Turkey against its own domestic legal mandates and counter-terrorism obligations, according to State Department guidelines on designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The Dynamics of US-Turkey Relations
The relationship between the United States and Turkey is historically defined by Turkey’s position as a NATO member since 1952. However, the nature of dealmaking under the Trump administration has historically bypassed traditional bureaucratic channels, favoring direct communication between the two presidents. In past instances, this has included discussions surrounding the purchase of military hardware, such as the S-400 missile system, which led to Turkey’s removal from the F-35 fighter jet program in 2019, as documented by the Department of Defense.
For global business observers, the concern is whether future “deals” will prioritize bilateral trade and political alignment at the expense of regional stability or international legal standards. Economic policy experts note that when foreign policy is conducted via personal negotiation, the predictability of regulatory and security environments for multinational corporations often decreases. Investors looking at the region are currently assessing whether the incoming administration will seek to normalize relations with Ankara by softening the U.S. stance on groups that Turkey labels as threats, even if those groups do not align with U.S. federal definitions of terrorism.
Legal Definitions and Geopolitical Risk
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the U.S. government maintains a rigorous process for designating entities as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). This legal framework requires evidence that an organization engages in terrorist activity that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. As noted by the Department of Justice, these designations carry significant domestic and international legal consequences, including asset freezes and the prohibition of material support.
The challenge for the incoming administration is that Turkish leadership has consistently pressured the U.S. to align its terror designations with Ankara’s own lists. If the U.S. were to shift its stance to accommodate these requests for the sake of a “deal,” it would mark a departure from the institutional rigor typically applied by the intelligence and state departments. Business leaders and policymakers are monitoring these developments, as any shift in U.S. policy could impact sanctions regimes, international banking compliance, and the broader stability of the Eastern Mediterranean.
What Happens Next
The next major checkpoint for these diplomatic relations will be the confirmation hearings for key cabinet positions, including Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. These sessions are expected to provide the first official insights into how the new administration intends to handle Turkey’s influence in regional conflicts. Furthermore, the first bilateral meeting between the two leaders, once the administration is fully inaugurated on January 20, 2025, will likely set the tone for trade and security cooperation for the coming four years.
Market participants and policy analysts are encouraged to monitor official press briefings from the White House and the State Department for updates on specific policy shifts regarding Turkey. As this situation develops, the complexity of balancing personal dealmaking with long-standing legal and security commitments remains a primary area of focus for the global business community.
We welcome your insights on how these shifting diplomatic priorities might affect your sector. Please join the conversation by sharing your thoughts or analysis in the comments section below.