Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter for the peaceful settlement of disputes states that the parties ‘shall, in the first instance, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice’. With few exceptions, armed groups eventually resort to some form of mediation to resolve their differences. As such, mediation remains the most effective means of reducing conflict and maintaining peace and security. It is the concrete manifestation of the growing power of peace diplomacy. Thanks to its confidentiality, impartiality and ability to listen to all the parties involved, it makes it possible to restore unity where there is division, to bring people together and define a common framework that broadens the vision to transcend the conflict and get the players out of the prison of a binary logic of win-lose and a zero-sum game. However, the new American administration has demonstrated a propensity to resolve conflicts it considers important bilaterally and by threatening to use economic or military force. What might this mean for mediation and international conflict resolution in general, and for the internationally recognised norms associated with the UN and its core mandate of maintaining international peace and security?