Trump likened to ‘daddy' by NATO chief over Israel-Iran conflict
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has likened US President Donald Trump to a 'daddy' intervening in a schoolyard brawl after the Trump repeatedly berated Middle East foes Israel and Iran this week.
Talking to reporters alongside Rutte at a NATO alliance summit, Trump again criticised Israel and Iran.
'They've had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard. You know, they fight like hell, you can't stop them. Let them fight for about two to three minutes, then it's easy to stop them,' he said.
In response, Rutte laughed and said: 'And then daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get (them to) stop.'
"Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte met in The Hague to discuss Iran and Israel. 'Let them fight for about 2, 3 minutes, then it's easy to stop them', said Trump, to which Rutte replied: 'Then Daddy has to [...] use strong language to get it stopped.'👉Watch the full interaction. pic.twitter.com/82BY3D5aM8— euronews (@euronews) June 25, 2025 "
On Tuesday, after a ceasefire deal, Trump had raised eyebrows by saying Israel and Iran had been fighting 'so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*** they're doing'.
With the 32-member NATO alliance endeavouring to placate Trump after complaints that it was over-reliant on US financial and military muscle, Rutte was asked if he might be over-flattering the US president.
'No, I don't think so. I think it's a bit of a question of taste,' he said, calling Trump a 'good friend' for more than a decade and praising his role in 'finally' persuading European countries to boost military spending.
'So doesn't he deserve some praise?' Rutte asked, also noting Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
'And when it comes to Iran, the fact that he took this decisive action, very targeted, to make sure that Iran would not be able to get his hands on a nuclear capability - I think he deserves all the praise.'
".@POTUS reacts to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling him 'Daddy':'I think he likes me...He did it very affectionately.' 😂 pic.twitter.com/c4Eha4pkVP— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 25, 2025 "
'He did it very affectionately,' Trump said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
16 minutes ago
- ABC News
UN Security Council faces a whole new world in 2025 — and Donald Trump is testing it
Since the end of World War II, there are two international organisations that have arguably done more than any others to prevent a third catastrophic global conflict: NATO and the United Nations Security Council. Donald Trump, with his doctrine of American isolationism, is severely testing both — by hinting at pulling out of NATO, and bypassing the Security Council on his way to bomb Iran. This week, NATO members met in the shadow of Trump's latest dig at the alliance, when he suggested he may not be entirely committed to NATO's Article 5 — the mutual defence pact, which states that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all. "Depends on your definition," he said on his way to the meeting. "There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends." NATO members are now adjusting to the possibility of reshaping their alliance and the need to rethink their defence budgets and procurements. The Security Council is a key part of the UN, which today celebrates 80 years since its foundation, but it is far less able to adapt than NATO. So what impact has Trump's decision to attack Iran without going to the Security Council first had? "I think it's done major damage," said Professor John Langmore, chair of the Initiative for Peacebuilding at Melbourne University. "The most powerful country in the world has acted without regard to the laws and processes, and got away with it. "It very seriously undermines the Security Council, and certainly damages its credibility." It's widely accepted that the UN Security Council, created in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects the world as it was then. Its most powerful members were the victors of the war; the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia, along with China, who all have the power to veto any resolution. On June 5, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza, despite its 14 other members voting in favour. In February, the US sided with Moscow over the war in Ukraine by drafting a Security Council resolution calling for an end to the war, but containing no criticism of Russia. Nonetheless, Langmore believes the council continues to fulfil its main job of preventing global conflict. "It's been highly effective because there hasn't been a World War III," he said. "It hasn't been able to stop local more localised violence in a whole series of ways. But it has acted in ways that have prevented global war." Chris Michaelsen, a Professor of International Law at Western Sydney University, agrees the council is still effective. "The world is a more peaceful place," Michaelsen said. "It doesn't seem like it, but that's an empirical fact. The number of inter-state wars in the 80 years since the establishment of the United Nations has drastically reduced." Michaelsen said in many big crises — "Ukraine, Iran, Gaza" — the veto countries prevented the council from acting as the UN charter envisaged. "But there are still many other crises — in Africa, and other parts of the world — where despite the massive antagonism now between the Trump administration, China and Russia, the council is still functioning," he said. But he said while the council will survive the Trump presidency, and America's withdrawal from international bodies like the World Health Organisation, its future may depend on who sits in the White House after he leaves office. "If it's another MAGA administration, then I think it can potentially have a lasting damaging effect on the council — because we are essentially looking at 10 years of US disengagement," he said. "I think that's not fatal, but it leads to a further irrelevance."
The Age
28 minutes ago
- The Age
Beware the doom loop: New bank rules raise debt fears
Yet at the urging of not just the banking sector, but the Trump administration, the Fed now wants to lower that ratio to levels similar to those of the largest non-US banks. Such a move would, on some calculations, release more than $US210 billion ($322 billion) of capital from the eight big US banks deemed to be of global systemic importance. Loading The proposal – it will be subjected to public comment – is supported by Fed chairman Jerome Powell and the new Trump-appointed vice chair, Michelle Bowman, who said it would help build resilience in the bond market, thus reducing the risk of market dysfunction and the need for the Fed to intervene in a future stress event. Bowman, who took up the role earlier this month, is the most senior US bank regulator. Her view is in stark contrast to her predecessor, Michael Barr, who said the move would reduce bank capital levels and significantly increase the risk that a G-SIB bank would fail and precipitate another crisis. The different stances reflect the differing priorities of those engaged in the debate about bank regulation. The proponents for lowering the leverage ratio, and also for excluding Treasury securities and bank deposits with the Fed from the calculations of leverage (which the US central bank is also considering), point to the periodic bouts of stress within the Treasury bond market. They argue that the leverage ratio has constrained the banks' ability to support that market in times of stress by limiting their capacity to buy bonds or fund other investors' trades. There have been bouts of limited liquidity in the market for Treasuries, most recently after Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs, which have forced the Fed to intervene to shore up the market. Some recent auctions of Treasuries have also experienced weak demand, with the Trump administration's policies, particularly his tariffs, being blamed for what's been described as the 'Sell America' trade. The level of demand for Treasuries is about to become even more significant. If the Republicans can agree on the final form of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act – their mega budget bill – they will add something around $US3.3 trillion to the US government's $US36.2 trillion of debt over the next decade. That makes the depth of demand for Treasuries critical because it will determine the prices at which the securities can be issued. The balancing item in the supply-demand equation is price, or the yield required for the market to absorb the issues. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said lowering the leverage ratio and increasing banks' capacity to buy Treasuries could cut tens of basis points from the cost of government debt. On debt levels approaching $US40 trillion, that could mean very substantial savings. Loading Critics of the leverage ratio say it has kept bank balance sheets from potentially growing at the same rate as the supply of government debt, which exploded during the initial Trump administration and Joe Biden's term in the White House. There are at least two potential problems with looking at the leverage ratio as the solution to malfunctions within the government debt market. One is that the cause of the problem isn't the leverage ratio, but the rate at which the volumes of government debt have been pouring into the market - a rate that will only accelerate if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passes. Cut the deficits and debt, and that would alleviate the perceived problem. Instead, the proponents of deregulation want to expand the balance sheet of the banks and raise their risk profiles, so that the deficits and debt can keep mounting. Both the government and bank balance sheets would be weakened. The second problem is that, if the regulators do free up more than $US200 billion of big bank capital, there is no certainty that the banks would use that to buy more Treasuries or prop up the market during times of stress. They could do what their shareholders would inevitably demand and buy back that suddenly-surplus capital, with no benefit to the Treasury market at all. The other measure being touted by the deregulation proponents, and being canvassed by the Fed, is whether Treasury securities and deposits with the Fed should be excluded from the banks' leverage calculations. The inclusion of supposedly 'risk-free' assets, like government bonds, from leverage calculations – even though they carry zero weighting in the core capital adequacy calculations – is based on the fact that they aren't risk-free. As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world. The regional bank crisis in the US in 2023 started when a run on the Silicon Valley Bank forced the lender to sell its holding of government bonds at discounts to face value – incurring significant losses -- to generate liquidity to meet the calls on its deposits. Macro events like Trump's tariff announcements, or government inflation data, can move bond yields significantly and create paper losses that, if the bond had to be sold to raise cash, would become very real and reduce the capital levels of the bank involved. Carving Treasuries out of the ratio might free up even more bank balance sheet capacity to buy Treasuries (or return capital to shareholders), but it would make the biggest US banks even more vulnerable to external events, and render the US system more fragile. In Europe, that nexus between government bonds and banks was dubbed the 'doom loop,' or a vicious and circular relationship between levels of government debt and banking system risk. During the European debt crisis that followed the global financial crisis, banks hoovered up their country's sovereign debt. As concerns about the creditworthiness of governments, particularly the over-leveraged southern European countries, mounted, the balance sheets of the banks holding piles of their government's supposedly risk-free debt were weakened. There's a direct relationship between fiscal stability and financial stability. Loading The continuing explosion of US government debt on issue is undermining the fiscal stability of the US and increasing levels of financial system risk, even as the administration and its regulators propose weakening the levels of insurance against another banking and financial crisis. The shape of US bank regulation matters beyond America because of the dominance of the US dollar and the US financial markets within the global financial system. As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world. No one wants history to repeat.
Sydney Morning Herald
28 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Beware the doom loop: New bank rules raise debt fears
Yet at the urging of not just the banking sector, but the Trump administration, the Fed now wants to lower that ratio to levels similar to those of the largest non-US banks. Such a move would, on some calculations, release more than $US210 billion ($322 billion) of capital from the eight big US banks deemed to be of global systemic importance. Loading The proposal – it will be subjected to public comment – is supported by Fed chairman Jerome Powell and the new Trump-appointed vice chair, Michelle Bowman, who said it would help build resilience in the bond market, thus reducing the risk of market dysfunction and the need for the Fed to intervene in a future stress event. Bowman, who took up the role earlier this month, is the most senior US bank regulator. Her view is in stark contrast to her predecessor, Michael Barr, who said the move would reduce bank capital levels and significantly increase the risk that a G-SIB bank would fail and precipitate another crisis. The different stances reflect the differing priorities of those engaged in the debate about bank regulation. The proponents for lowering the leverage ratio, and also for excluding Treasury securities and bank deposits with the Fed from the calculations of leverage (which the US central bank is also considering), point to the periodic bouts of stress within the Treasury bond market. They argue that the leverage ratio has constrained the banks' ability to support that market in times of stress by limiting their capacity to buy bonds or fund other investors' trades. There have been bouts of limited liquidity in the market for Treasuries, most recently after Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs, which have forced the Fed to intervene to shore up the market. Some recent auctions of Treasuries have also experienced weak demand, with the Trump administration's policies, particularly his tariffs, being blamed for what's been described as the 'Sell America' trade. The level of demand for Treasuries is about to become even more significant. If the Republicans can agree on the final form of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act – their mega budget bill – they will add something around $US3.3 trillion to the US government's $US36.2 trillion of debt over the next decade. That makes the depth of demand for Treasuries critical because it will determine the prices at which the securities can be issued. The balancing item in the supply-demand equation is price, or the yield required for the market to absorb the issues. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said lowering the leverage ratio and increasing banks' capacity to buy Treasuries could cut tens of basis points from the cost of government debt. On debt levels approaching $US40 trillion, that could mean very substantial savings. Loading Critics of the leverage ratio say it has kept bank balance sheets from potentially growing at the same rate as the supply of government debt, which exploded during the initial Trump administration and Joe Biden's term in the White House. There are at least two potential problems with looking at the leverage ratio as the solution to malfunctions within the government debt market. One is that the cause of the problem isn't the leverage ratio, but the rate at which the volumes of government debt have been pouring into the market - a rate that will only accelerate if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passes. Cut the deficits and debt, and that would alleviate the perceived problem. Instead, the proponents of deregulation want to expand the balance sheet of the banks and raise their risk profiles, so that the deficits and debt can keep mounting. Both the government and bank balance sheets would be weakened. The second problem is that, if the regulators do free up more than $US200 billion of big bank capital, there is no certainty that the banks would use that to buy more Treasuries or prop up the market during times of stress. They could do what their shareholders would inevitably demand and buy back that suddenly-surplus capital, with no benefit to the Treasury market at all. The other measure being touted by the deregulation proponents, and being canvassed by the Fed, is whether Treasury securities and deposits with the Fed should be excluded from the banks' leverage calculations. The inclusion of supposedly 'risk-free' assets, like government bonds, from leverage calculations – even though they carry zero weighting in the core capital adequacy calculations – is based on the fact that they aren't risk-free. As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world. The regional bank crisis in the US in 2023 started when a run on the Silicon Valley Bank forced the lender to sell its holding of government bonds at discounts to face value – incurring significant losses -- to generate liquidity to meet the calls on its deposits. Macro events like Trump's tariff announcements, or government inflation data, can move bond yields significantly and create paper losses that, if the bond had to be sold to raise cash, would become very real and reduce the capital levels of the bank involved. Carving Treasuries out of the ratio might free up even more bank balance sheet capacity to buy Treasuries (or return capital to shareholders), but it would make the biggest US banks even more vulnerable to external events, and render the US system more fragile. In Europe, that nexus between government bonds and banks was dubbed the 'doom loop,' or a vicious and circular relationship between levels of government debt and banking system risk. During the European debt crisis that followed the global financial crisis, banks hoovered up their country's sovereign debt. As concerns about the creditworthiness of governments, particularly the over-leveraged southern European countries, mounted, the balance sheets of the banks holding piles of their government's supposedly risk-free debt were weakened. There's a direct relationship between fiscal stability and financial stability. Loading The continuing explosion of US government debt on issue is undermining the fiscal stability of the US and increasing levels of financial system risk, even as the administration and its regulators propose weakening the levels of insurance against another banking and financial crisis. The shape of US bank regulation matters beyond America because of the dominance of the US dollar and the US financial markets within the global financial system. As the 2008 crisis demonstrated, if America's financial system teeters, it sends shockwaves throughout the world. No one wants history to repeat.
