This study offers a discourse-pragmatic analysis of the Oval Office meeting between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, focusing on how the interaction diverges from conventional diplomatic discourse. Drawing on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, Culpeper’s (1996, 2011) impoliteness model, Locher and Watts’ (2005) relational work framework, and Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory, the analysis identifies six major discursive strategies employed by Trump and Republican interlocutors: bald-on-record face-threatening acts, interruptions and turn-taking violations, sarcasm and mock politeness, enforced gratitude, delegitimization and epistemic denial, and media-oriented performance. These strategies serve not only to assert dominance and silence the interlocutor but also to reframe the meeting as a performative act for a domestic audience rather than a cooperative diplomatic exchange. The study finds that Trump’s rhetorical style constructs a symbolic hierarchy in which Ukraine is positioned as dependent and morally accountable, while the U.S. emerges as the central, authoritative actor. This interactional asymmetry reflects broader patterns in populist political discourse, where confrontation, spectacle, and ideological projection displace traditional norms of diplomacy such as mutual respect, deference, and face-saving. The study contributes to the growing body of research on political communication by illustrating how power and ideology are enacted through discourse in high-stakes international encounters.