Germany's Merz to face Trump in Oval Office on inaugural trip
BERLIN/WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, will hold his first face-to-face talks with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday in a high stakes meeting in the Oval Office as Europe seeks to stave off looming U.S. tariffs and sustain U.S. backing for Ukraine.
The 69-year-old conservative, who took the helm of Europe's largest economy last month, is scheduled to join Trump for lunch and one-on-one talks that analysts say could set the tone for U.S.-German ties for years to come.
Germany's export-oriented economy stands more to lose from U.S. tariffs than others and the country is also the second largest military and financial backer of Ukraine in its defence against Russia's invasion, after the United States.
The meeting comes amid a broader fraying of the transatlantic relationship. Trump's administration has, for example, intervened in domestic European politics in a break with past practise, aligning with right-wing political movements and challenging European policies on immigration and free speech.
The encounter will be closely watched after some recent meetings in the Oval Office, with the leaders of Ukraine and South Africa, for example, turned tense when Trump ambushed them with false claims and accusations.
Merz and his entourage have sought coaching from other leaders on how to deal with Trump to avoid conflict.
The meeting comes just weeks before a critical summit of the NATO Western military alliance which is looking increasingly strained given Trump's threats not to come to the aid of U.S. allies that do not up their spending on defence.
Such threats are of particular concern to Germany, which has relied on U.S. nuclear deterrence for its security since the end of World War Two.
Merz has already made some bold policy moves that he can highlight to appease Trump, analysts said. He has backed Trump's demand to more than double NATO's spending target to 5% of economic output, earning unprecedented praise last weekend from U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Merz, who has vowed a more assertive foreign policy, also coordinated a visit by European leaders to Kyiv just days after taking office, two European diplomat sources said.
"This shows that Germany is willing to accept a greater responsibility for Ukraine and the European security order – these are all things that have been wished for in the United States over years and will be welcomed," said Sudha David-Wilp of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
"Germany is well-positioned to show that it can help the United States achieve its foreign policy goals."
The fact Merz was invited to stay in the Blair House guest quarters across from the White House is a positive signal, said analysts.
Merz and Trump could even find some common ground given their business backgrounds, their membership in right-of-centre political parties, their focus on fighting illegal immigration and their fondness for golf, said Steven Sokol, President and CEO of the American Council on Germany.
They also both had run-ins with former German chancellor Angela Merkel - who once squeezed Merz out of top-level politics.
Moreover Merz has described himself as "a convinced transatlanticist", chairing the "Atlantic Bridge", a non-profit fostering U.S.-German ties, for 10 years.
"They might discover a kindred spirit," Sokol said.
Still, Trump was unpredictable, while Merz was impulsive, warned analysts, and there were huge frictions in the relationship.
"The challenge that he could face is ... if Trump says something is erroneous, do you correct him? Do you risk turning it into an argument?" said Jeffrey Rathke, a former U.S. diplomat and president of the American-German Institute at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington.
"Or do you find a way to indicate that you see it differently, but not let it sidetrack the conversation."
U.S. administration officials remain upset that Merz criticized Trump shortly before the 2024 U.S. election, a source familiar with its thinking said.
And, on the eve of his own election victory, Merz criticised the "ultimately outrageous" comments flowing from Washington during the campaign, comparing them to hostile interventions from Russia.
Another possible landmine could be a recent German proposal for a levy on online platforms such as Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, and Meta's Facebook (META.O), opens new tab, especially given Trump's close ties with the U.S. tech industry, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
6 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Trump administration open to discussion on key issues, Merz says
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said his meeting with President Donald Trump convinced him that the US administration is open to discussion on key issues. Mr Merz described his Oval Office meeting and extended lunch with Mr Trump on Thursday as constructive but also candid, noting the two leaders expressed different views on Ukraine. He said: 'Yesterday, in the meeting at the Oval Office, I expressed a distinctly different position on the topic of Ukraine than the one Trump had taken, and not only was there no objection, but we discussed it in detail again over lunch.' The White House meeting marked the first time the two sat down in person. Mr Merz, who became chancellor in May, avoided the kind of confrontations in the Oval Office that have tripped up other world leaders, including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa. The German chancellor presented Mr Trump with a gold-framed birth certificate of the president's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Kallstadt, Germany. Mr Trump called Mr Merz a 'very good man to deal with'. The American administration, Mr Merz said, is open to discussion, listens and is willing to accept differing opinions. He added: 'Let's stop talking about Donald Trump with a raised finger and wrinkled nose. You have to talk with him, not about him.' Mr Merz said he also met with senators on Capitol Hill, urging them to recognise the scale of Russian rearmament. 'Please take a look at how far Russia's armament is going, what they are currently doing there; you obviously have no idea what's happening,' he said he told them. 'In short, you can talk to them, but you must not let yourself be intimidated. I don't have that inclination anyway.' Mr Merz, who speaks English fluently, stressed the need for transatlantic trust and said he reminded Mr Trump that allies matter. 'Whether we like it or not, we will remain dependent on the United States of America for a long time,' he said. 'But you also need partners in the world, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, are the best-suited partners. 'This is the difference between authoritarian systems and democracies: authoritarian systems have subordinates. Democracies have partners — and we want to be those partners in Europe and with America.' He reiterated that the US remains committed to Nato, particularly as Germany and others boost their defence spending. Mr Trump has in the past suggested the US might abandon its commitments to the alliance if member countries do not meet defence spending targets. Mr Merz said: 'I have absolutely no doubt that the American government is committed to Nato, especially now that we've all said we're doing more. 'We're ensuring that we can also defend ourselves in Europe, and I believe this expectation was not unjustified.' 'We've been the free riders of American security guarantees for years and we're changing that now.'
Sky News
10 minutes ago
- Sky News
Kemi Badenoch: ECHR has become 'sword used to attack democratic decisions'
Kemi Badenoch has warned there is "no silver bullet" to tackle immigration, but said it is "likely" the UK should leave the ECHR. It comes as the Conservative Party leader launched a review into whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In a landmark speech setting out her party's position on immigration, the Tory leader accused the body, which dates back to the 1950s, of becoming a "sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense". She said the ECHR has been used to prevent foreign criminals, including convicted groomers, from being deported, as they have a right to family life under Article Eight of the convention. Ms Badenoch said: "Over and over again, we hear of cases like this, where the law is weak, or just a mess. "Right now, we are turning into a country that protects criminals and rewards their victims." She said "this can't go on" and described the use of the law in this way as "lawfare". 1:50 New immigration policy Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "a total end to asylum claims in this country by illegal immigrants". She also said the Conservatives want "all those who arrive illegally and try to claim asylum" to be deported immediately. The current asylum system is "broken", and the government has "lost control" of it - with the system now in the control of people traffickers, she alleged. 19:32 Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "fundamental reform", which is why she said she has launched a commission to review the ECHR. The commission will be chaired by Tory peer and former justice minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who is now the shadow attorney general. She accused Labour of having "no interest" in reforming the ECHR, and said that they "quite like the way things are". Ms Badenoch also said the government "isn't interested" in solving problems such as how many immigrants should be allowed to stay in the UK. Badenoch's five tests The Conservative Party leader set out "five tests" she would like the review to judge the ECHR against: • The deportation test - whether parliament, rather than the courts, "decides who comes here and who stays" • The veterans test - this is about stopping "veterans being endlessly pursued by vexatious legal attacks" • The fairness test - whether British citizens can be prioritised for social housing and public services • The justice test - whether prison sentences can be made to actually reflect parliament's intentions • The prosperity test - whether parliament can "prevent endless legal challenges for our infrastructure projects" Ms Badenoch said that if these tests cannot be met and there is "no realistic prospect of changing them", then the UK must leave the ECHR - "no hesitation, no apology". She admitted "there is no silver bullet" - but added she believes this is the best course of action. The review will report back at the party's conference in the autumn. What are the other parties saying? Ms Badenoch's position goes less far than that of Reform UK, who she also attacked in her speech. 1:06 Nigel Farage has said he would leave the ECHR already. It also puts her out of step with some of her cabinet, including prominent Tory, Robert Jenrick. The shadow justice secretary warned Tories the party would "die" if they did not back exiting the ECHR. Labour has meanwhile said it would like to remain in the ECHR but will bring forward legislation to "ensure it is the government and not parliament that decides who should have the right to remain in the UK". Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said compliance with international law has helped the government strike deals about cracking down on criminal gangs, such as with France and Germany. A Labour spokesperson accused Ms Badenoch of "booting [the issue] into the long grass". They said: "Kemi Badenoch bemoaned the broken immigration and asylum system, but failed to mention it was her party which broke it. The Tories had had 14 years to fix our immigration system."
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sarah Vine's memoir is fascinating, embarrassing and fundamentally tragic
The 'misery memoir ' was a genre one thought peculiar to the early years of this century. However, with this strange book, Sarah Vine, formerly Mrs Michael Gove, has resurrected it. Its title, How Not to Be a Political Wife, seems flippant, and one expects, when beginning it, to experience some sort of extended stunt. What one gets is in turns interesting, embarrassing and, fundamentally, mildly tragic. Ms Vine's contention is that she married a journalist and ended up with a politician; that politics is horrible; and it ruined her marriage and, to a great extent, her life and her children's. How far this is true must be up to each reader to judge. Because of the detail into which the author chooses to go, it seems to this reader that certain factors had shaped her life and her character long before her husband arrived. But first, the interesting stuff. I must come clean: I have long been a friend of Michael Gove, admire his considerable political and intellectual talents, and feel he has had a deeply unfair press. The service this book does to history is to put the record about him straight. First, he was vilified by David Cameron and his cronies for supporting Brexit in the 2016 referendum. It was, as Ms Vine emphasises correctly, a battle between a man with principles and a group of careerists who hardly knew the meaning of the word. Second, he was reviled by much of the Conservative party for his so-called 'betrayal' of Boris Johnson just after the referendum, when Johnson, running for the leadership, was showing precious little loyalty to him. All Gove had done was realise, before it was too late, that Johnson was the incompetent liar, charlatan and trickster his grotesque premiership proved him to be. I and others who knew what went on have defended Gove for years for this reason; it is good that this book puts it all on the record. I hope Theresa May, whose apparently saintly personal reputation also gets the kicking it deserves for her outrageous treatment of Gove in sacking him for 'disloyalty', reads this part of the book at least: maybe she will find a belated sense of shame, though one doubts it. The book also, though, shows just what a cesspit our politics became in the 14 years of Conservative rule from 2010 to 2024. What fills cesspits filled a succession of administrations. Cameron, the first of a succession of unremittingly dire prime ministers, was the ultimate cronyist. He adopted this method of management because his political life was, as Ms Vine definitively shows, all about him and his survival in office; never about what he could do for the country. As some of us wrote at the time, Cameron's addiction to his yes-men and women prevented him from calling on some of the older, and wiser, members of his party who might have given him advice superior to that of his cronies. This, too, is made plain in this book. Cameron's narcissism also made it impossible for him to see a link between his disloyalty to Gove – whom he demoted from Education Secretary despite his being the most successful holder of that office in recent memory – and Gove's decision that his principles about the EU might override any personal loyalty from him that Cameron merited. The embarrassing aspect of this book is the detail into which Ms Vine goes about her background: her being loathed at school, her mental and physical health and the effect her ex-husband's career had on her and their children. Describing her upbringing she portrays her father as a monster. In her acknowledgements at the end of the work she begins with 'my father, for f------ me up so brilliantly'. If we haven't realised it by this stage, what we have just read turns out to be a book by the thinking man's Meghan Markle. It has taken 'courage' (as she says in another acknowledgement: and I am sure it did) to lay all this personal upset bare, and doubtless she has found it therapeutic. Will her own children thank her, in years to come, for going into such detail about what they unquestionably suffered because of their father's prominence, and all the unhappiness it brought them? Doubtless Ms Vine thought she was being cathartic on her own account, and vicariously on theirs. Only time will tell. And then there's the mildly tragic aspect. Ms Vine exposes a chip on her shoulder the size of Yorkshire. Wounded deeply by her dear friend Samantha Cameron – about whom, to her credit, she says no bad word – turning on her viciously at a dinner party around the time of Brexit, she harps on about the class differences between her and the Camerons and their pretty repulsive cast of chums. She should pull herself together: 'Dave's' father was a stockbroker, not the Duke of Devonshire. It's indicative of the lack of a sense of perspective in this book, and which one fears is typical of the Markle school of thought. Most tragic of all is Ms Vine's reference to a 'friendship group' that abandoned them when her husband stood up for himself and his beliefs. I am not sure I have ever met anyone over the age of 14 who has a 'friendship group': but it's just another way of saying that the Goves were sucked in to the bunch of cronies around Cameron, though never so deeply that they could not be expelled again, in what reads like an act of social projectile vomiting. The whole thing is repellently infantile, and it's depressing that impostors such as the Cameron clique were ever allowed near power. I suspect no man reading this book (and I must plead guilty on that front) will perceive all its nuances, because it is (again from its title) presumably aimed mostly at women. One certainly rarely senses that Ms Vine is writing with the idea that a man – other, perhaps, than her ex-husband, about whom also she says no bad word – is among her readership. Perhaps other wives who have suffered because of their husband's careers will obtain something valuable from it. It is not a particularly literary book (if you want that in this context, read Sasha Swire 's diaries about the same period) but it will prove undeniably useful to those unfortunate historians who have to write about this ghastly period in decades to come. Otherwise, Ms Vine might have been far better advised not to write it at all.
