He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones. How many times in our lifetimes have we heard that admonition to watch our words, especially our criticisms, of those around us? The same could be said of American foreign policy in general, and more specifically of President Donald Trump and his new doctrine of diplomacy around the globe.

While past U.S. presidents have too often settled for statements of condemnation, this president has acted — sometimes controversially, often imperfectly, but unmistakably — to push toward outcomes that can actually end wars. At a time when Democrat critics are loud, and their social media outlets louder, the more relevant question for a responsible foreign policy is simpler: Who is doing the hard work to shorten conflicts and save lives? On balance, Trump is.

Consider the Alaska summit two weeks ago. Hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson was never going to produce instant peace in Ukraine.

The joint meeting did, however, reopen a high-level channel, clarify the remaining gaps, and force all sides to confront the choices ahead rather than posture from afar. Sure, no agreement was reached, but Washington has since signaled a push to accelerate negotiations with allies while keeping pressure on Moscow — a sober, realistic next step that recognizes that wars end through talks, not tweets.

The president’s same bias for action is visible in Gaza. This week Trump convened a policy session at the White House that included Jared Kushner and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to work through a path that links a ceasefire to hostage releases, humanitarian surge and postwar governance. You can quarrel with the personalities or the pace, but you can’t miss the intent: Move the file, not the goalposts. Special Envoy for Peace Missions Steve Witkoff has been pressing a 60-day truce framework with regional partners, even as the suffering tests everyone’s patience and moral endurance.

Outside the headlines, the administration notched a breakthrough many Americans may have missed: the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace accord signed at the White House on Aug. 8. This is the first durable settlement of a long-frozen conflict near Russia’s periphery since the Cold War. It includes U.S. stewardship of a transit corridor meant to knit together a commercially vital region and reduce opportunities for renewed fighting — a reminder that economic connectivity can be a peace tool, not just a buzzword.

Likewise in the Red Sea, Washington helped broker a halt to escalatory strikes with the Houthis this spring, pausing U.S. bombing as part of a deal — mediated by Oman — aimed at ending attacks on commercial shipping. The arrangement is hardly perfect and has been stress-tested by subsequent flareups, but it reflects a willingness to trade chest-thumping for practical deescalation that protects global commerce and reduces the chance of a wider regional war. That is what responsible statecraft looks like. Trump should be commended because we know he sure as heck would be criticized if this or any conflict spiraled further out of control.

In Asia, the president has reopened the door to North Korea diplomacy — another area where talking is not capitulating but rather hedging against miscalculation. After meeting South Korea’s new president this week, Trump said he wants to sit down with Kim Jong Un again this year. Critics will scoff; they always do. Yet dialogue remains the only proven way to freeze or roll back nuclear risks on the peninsula — and keeping that option alive serves U.S. allies and U.S. interests.

Even in our own hemisphere, the administration’s moves are better read as peace through pressure rather than warmongering. A tougher maritime posture toward Venezuela, paired with efforts at the United Nations to shore up an international security mission in Haiti, is about restoring deterrence and creating space for political settlements — not about scoring political points among Democratic hopefuls in 2028. Peace sometimes requires a visible stick so diplomacy has a credible carrot.

None of this is neat. The Alaska summit drew protests and grim commentary; Gaza diplomacy involves figures who polarize; the Caucasus deal has critics who fear what was left unresolved. But the alternative — issuing “strongly worded” condemnations from the safety of Washington — has been tried for decades. It produced stalemates, not solutions. The current approach is different: Convene adversaries, squeeze spoilers, align economic incentives with security realities, and test propositions in public view. That is a recipe for progress, not perfection.