Trump scorns Merkel legacy during new German chancellor's White House visit
Donald Trump has heaped criticism on the former German chancellor Angela Merkel for opening up her country to refugees, telling her successor: 'I told her it shouldn't have happened.'
During an appearance with the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, on Thursday, Trump was asked about the sweeping travel restrictions on 19 countries that he announced the previous day.
'We want to keep bad people out of our country … of course, you have a little problem too with some of the people that were allowed into your country,' Trump said to Merz, in an apparent reference to a number of attacks in Germany involving refugees.
Merz replied: 'Yes we do,' before Trump continued: 'It's not your fault …. It shouldn't have happened. I told her it shouldn't have happened, but it did. But you have your own difficulty with that, and we do.'
He was referring to Merkel, but did not call her by name. The former chancellor visited the White House in 2017 during Trump's first term of office, when she was given a grilling by Trump over her so-called open-door policy, which allowed around 1 million refugees – mainly from Syria and Iraq – into Germany.
Merz's highly anticipated visit had been viewed with trepidationin Berlin, amid fears that the German leader may face another Oval Office ambush, such as those endured by Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa.
In the end, all the criticism was levied at Merkel, a former political rival of Merz. Trump also made a dig about Merkel's enthusiasm for the building of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which brought gas from Russia to Europe.
During the 35-minute press conference, Merz struggled to get a word in, though as German commentators noted, that was probably to the relief of his advisers, who feared there were a number of issues on which Trump might have pilloried him, from defence spending to immigration.
When he did manage to speak, the former corporate lawyer mostly focused on Ukraine and the need to end the conflict, in particular by bringing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to account.
Merz also pushed back several times on Trump's narrative that Ukraine and Russia were equally to blame for the war.
'I'm here, Mr President, to talk to you later on how we could contribute to that goal [to end the war]. We are all looking for measures and for instruments to bring this terrible war to an end,' Merz said.
He compared the US role in ending the conflict with the part US troops played in defeating the Nazi dictatorship. He noted that Friday will mark the 81st anniversary of D-day, in which tens of thousands of US troops joined allied troops in invading Normandy.
The US, he said, was 'again, in the very strong position to do something' about ending the war. Trump, he said, was the 'key person in the world' who could stop the war 'by putting pressure on Russia'.
Trump praised Germany for having agreed to boost its defence spending to 5% of GDP, after years-long demands from Washington for it to do so.
Asked by a German journalist whether Berlin was 'doing enough on defence', Trump said: 'I know you're spending more money on defence now. Quite a bit more money. That's a positive.'
But to some nervous laughter in the room, he quipped that he was 'not sure if Gen MacArthur would have said it's positive,' a reference to the supreme commander for the allied powers, among whose focuses was postwar demilitarisation.
Merz prepared for the visit in part by talking to other leaders who have met Trump in recent months to gather tips about the best way to handle him.
Merkel has said that she prepared for her first Trump visit – when he was less well-known as a politician – by reading a 1980s interview with him in Playboy and watching episodes of The Apprentice.
Merz was put up for the night in the official government guest house, Blair House, which his advisers said was a signal that the two leaders – who refer to one other by their first names – were on a good footing.
Merz presented Trump with a gold-framed birth certificate of his grandfather Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Germany in 1885, as well as a book titled News from the Land of Freedom – German Immigrants Write Home, which is a collection of letters written by German émigrés in the US to their families back in Germany.
'It is a small present to remind him of his family,' Merz said. He has also invited Trump to Germany to visit his grandfather's home village.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: 'We can sniff Starmer's fear of Farage' say voters as they back winter fuel U-turn and insist two-child benefit cap must stay
Mrs Merton, the comic interviewer created by the late Caroline Aherne, famously asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels. In the same satirical spirit, voters have been wondering what it was about the Reform party's surge in the local elections that prompted Keir Starmer to tighten his immigration policy and row back on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Some welcome the winter fuel reversal and even give Labour some credit for listening and learning. More sceptical voters, of whom there are plenty, see a weak Government that can't make a decision and stick to it. Some wonder which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn. On all sides, the link between Labour's plummeting popularity and the winter fuel climbdown is obvious (in my research, Starmer's explanation that his newfound largesse was the result of an improving economy just made people laugh). 'You've kind of gotta sniff a bit of desperation,' one 2024 Labour voter told us. The same is true of Starmer's recent conversion to tighter immigration controls, with promises of stricter education and language requirements and a longer wait for settled status. On this issue, voters are, if anything, even more doubtful – for at least three reasons. First, they don't think he means it: the human rights lawyer and free-movement advocate has not suddenly seen the merits of firm border control ('If that was what you truly believe, it should have been on the table months ago,' a Reform supporter said). Second, they don't think it will happen: my poll found only just over a quarter of all voters think Labour would succeed in cutting immigration numbers, even if it wanted to – which most think it doesn't. Third, they think he's aiming at the wrong target. As my poll also showed, people care much more about illegal migration, and the vast hotel costs that follow, than about those coming here legitimately to work. Some worry that Starmer's new rules will make it harder to recruit, especially in crucial areas such as the care sector, even as migrants arrive on our beaches in record-breaking numbers. In a double blow for Starmer, the people who take his new immigration rhetoric most seriously are the ones who like it least, often inside his own party. Most of them don't think he means it either, but some longstanding Labour voters find it profoundly depressing that the Prime Minister seems willing, as they see it, to pander to the Right. Many found his warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' particularly worrying. 'When you're quoting Enoch Powell, I draw a line at that,' one told us last week. Evidently aware of these tensions, Labour figures are dangling the prospect of an end to the rule under which families can only claim child-related benefits for up to two children. This would please the Left and many party activists, but infuriate rather more than that. In my poll, most Labour voters backed the two-child benefit limit, while Conservatives and Reform voters did so overwhelmingly. They see it as an issue of fairness: 'I've got six children and I agree with the cap, because all the extra children I had, I've paid for,' one participant put it. These debates underline the dilemmas facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she prepares to unveil her spending review on Wednesday. With the economy struggling to grow under the weight of her extra taxes and regulations, she faces difficult choices over how to maintain public services – and the Government's new commitments on defence – while sticking to her fiscal rules. I found voters tend to want her to balance the books by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, but think she will do the opposite. Starmer has tried to divert attention from Labour's troubles by highlighting the contradictions in his opponents' plans. It is certainly true that Nigel Farage is offering simultaneously to slash taxes and boost spending – not least by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. But these attacks on Reform slightly miss the point. Those drawn to the party know its policies are a work in progress; it is the change of direction they want to see. They want a government that takes them seriously and puts Britain first. They won't be fact-checked into submission. More interesting is Starmer's acknowledgment that Reform is now Labour's chief opponent – a view shared by voters of all parties. Strikingly, my poll found Farage is considered the most likely of the current leaders to be PM after the next election. This is not good news for Kemi Badenoch. Most in my poll expected her to be swapped out before the election. This is not because it would be a good thing or would help the Tories' chances, but because that's what they believe the party does. No Tory leader has served a full term since David Cameron. The leadership circus has long been part of the Conservatives' problem. Another round would signal to many potential supporters that the party is not serious. And with Labour in trouble and Reform promising whatever it pleases, seriousness is above all what the Tories need to prove.
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
Mr Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with tech entrepreneur Mr Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX was over, Mr Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Mr Trump continued. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review your details and accept them to load the content 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him (Mr Musk) a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The US President also issued a warning amid speculation that Mr Musk could back Democratic legislators and candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Mr Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Mr Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The US President's latest comments suggest Mr Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Mr Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Mr Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Mr Trump has already threatened to cut Mr Musk's contracts, calling it an easy way to save money. The dramatic rupture between the President and the world's richest man began this week with Mr Musk's public criticism of Mr Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Mr Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination'. Mr Trump criticised Mr Musk in the Oval Office, and before long, he and Mr Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and Republican congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. As the back-and-forth intensified, Mr Musk suggested Mr Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the President's association with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. In an interview, US vice president JD Vance tried to downplay the feud. He said Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' who was becoming frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Mr Vance said. Mr Vance called Mr Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Mr Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to cut US government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good'. Mr Vance made the comments in an interview with 'manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the US Navy when he opened for Mr Trump at a military base in Qatar. The Vance interview was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Mr Von showed the vice president Mr Musk's claim that Mr Trump's administration has not released all the records related to Epstein because Mr Trump is mentioned in them. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Mr Vance responded to that, saying: 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Mr Vance said in response to another post shared by Mr Musk calling for Mr Trump to be impeached and replaced with Mr Vance. 'It's totally insane. The President is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Mr Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Mr Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending and taxes but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by 2.4 trillion dollars (£1.77 trillion) over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Mr Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.'
