Commentary: Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy
LEIDEN, Netherlands: Donald Trump is a difficult figure to deal with, both for foreign leaders and figures closer to home who find themselves in his crosshairs. The United States president is unpredictable, sensitive and willing to break the rules to get his way.
But in Trump's second term, a variety of different leaders and institutions seem to have settled on a way to handle him. The key, they seem to think, is flattery. The most obvious example came at the recently concluded NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, where world leaders got together to discuss the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Previous summits with Trump have descended into recrimination and backbiting. The organisers were determined to avoid a repeat – and decided the best way to do it was to make Trump feel really, really good about himself.
Even before the summit began, NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte had texted Trump to thank him for his 'decisive action' in bombing Iran. This, he said, was something 'no one else dared to do'.
Then, when discussing Trump's role in ending the war between Israel and Iran, Rutte referred to Trump as 'daddy' – a name the White House has already transformed into a meme.
🎶 Daddy's home… Hey, hey, hey, Daddy. President Donald J. Trump attended the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands.
Posted by The White House on Wednesday, June 25, 2025
MAKING TRUMP FEEL GOOD
The summit itself was light on the sort of contentious and detailed policy discussions that have historically bored and angered Trump.
Instead, it was reduced to a series of photo opportunities and speeches in which other leaders lavished praise on Trump. Lithuania's President Gitanas Nauseda even suggested the alliance ought to copy Trump's political movement by adopting the phrase 'make NATO great again'.
NATO leaders aren't the only ones trying this trick. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has had a go at it too. Starmer has made sure that Trump will be the first US president to make a second state visit to the United Kingdom. He described the honour in Trump-like terms: 'This has never happened before. It's so incredible. It will be historic.'
After Trump announced global trade tariffs earlier in the year, Starmer was the first leader to give Trump a much-needed victory by reaching a framework trade agreement. But it worked both ways, with Starmer able to land a political victory too.
In his first term, flattery was also seen as a tool to be used to get Trump onside. Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried it in phone conversations with the US president, calling him a 'great teacher' from whom he learned 'skills and knowledge'.
Flattery and compliance clearly have their uses. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism and susceptible to praise, however hyperbolic and transparent it might be. Buttering him up may be an effective way to get him to back off.
But it doesn't achieve much else. At the NATO summit, an opportunity was missed to make progress on issues of real importance, such as how to better support Ukraine in its war against Russia or to better coordinate European defence spending.
A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day.
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
Individual decisions to bow down to Trump also mean missing the opportunity to mount collective resistance. One country might not be able to stand up to the president, but the odds of doing so would be greatly improved if leaders banded together.
For example, Trump's trade tariffs will damage the US economy as well as those of its trading partners. That is especially the case if those partners impose tariffs of their own on US goods.
If each country instead follows Britain's lead in the hope of getting the best deal for itself, they will have missed the opportunity to force the president to feel some discomfort of his own – and possibly change course.
But perhaps the greatest danger of flattering Trump is that it teaches him that he can get away with doing pretty much whatever he likes. For a president who has threatened to annex the territory of NATO allies Denmark and Canada to nevertheless be feted at a NATO summit sends a message of impunity.
That's a dangerous lesson for Trump to learn. He has spent much of his second term undermining democratic and liberal norms at home and key tenets of US foreign policy abroad, such as hostility to Russia. He is attempting to undermine all traditional sources of authority and expertise and instead make the world dance to his own tune.
Given the expansive scope of his aims, which many experts already think is leading to a constitutional crisis that threatens democracy, the willingness to suck up to Trump normalises him in a menacing way.
When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from those he chooses to attack.
Perhaps the best that can be said for this strategy is that maybe it will appease Trump enough to prevent him from doing too much actual harm. But when dealing with such an unpredictable and vindictive president, that is a thin reed of hope.
It is much more likely to encourage him to press on – until the harm becomes too severe to ignore.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
37 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Trump dismisses reports US is weighing up to $38 billion civilian nuclear deal for Iran, World News
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump on Friday (June 27) dismissed media reports that said his administration had discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion (S$38 billion) to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme. CNN reported on Thursday and NBC News reported on Friday that the Trump administration in recent days had explored possible economic incentives for Iran in return for its government halting uranium enrichment. The reports cited sources. CNN cited officials as saying that several proposals were floated and were preliminary. "Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that 'President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.' Never heard of this ridiculous idea," Trump wrote on Truth Social late on Friday, calling the reports a "Hoax." Since April, Iran and the US have held indirect talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear programme. Tehran says its programme is peaceful and Washington says it wants to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. Trump, earlier this week, announced a ceasefire between US ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. The US struck Iran's nuclear sites over the last weekend and Iran targeted a US base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation, before Trump announced the ceasefire. [[nid:719354]] Israel is the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The UN nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, has said it has "no credible indication" of an active, coordinated weapons programme in Iran.
Straits Times
44 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
Mr Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Jan 27 curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called 'universal' injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has 'systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion,' said Mr Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. June 27's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Mr Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Mr Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Mr Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Mr Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases,' Mr George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. 'Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency,' Mr Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. 'It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform.' Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Mr Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Mr Luther said. The cases involving Mr Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Mr Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. 'One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers,' Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace 'reverse' discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. 'The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'' Mr Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Mr Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Mr Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called 'third countries.' Recent rulings 'have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court,' Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Mr Kreis said, 'is probably feeling more emboldened to act.' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block presidential policies, World News
WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday (June 27) in a case involving birthright citizenship by curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, changing the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the legality of the policy, part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigration. The Republican president lauded the ruling and said his administration can now try to move forward with numerous policies such as his birthright citizenship executive order that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court granted the administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal members dissented. The ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually applying in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship litigation found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. Warning against an "imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote, "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling a "travesty for the rule of law" as she read a summary of her dissent from the bench. In her written dissent, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, Sotomayor criticised the court's majority for ignoring whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. "Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case," Sotomayor wrote. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The ruling was issued on the final day of decisions on cases argued before the Supreme Court during its nine-month term that began in October. The court also issued rulings on Friday backing a Texas law regarding online pornography, letting parents opt children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read, endorsing the Federal Communications Commission's funding mechanism for expanded phone and broadband internet access and preserving Obamacare's provision on health insurers covering preventive care. 'Monumental victory' Trump called the ruling a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law." The policies Trump said his administration can now attempt to proceed with included cutting off funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," suspending resettlement of refugees in the United States, freezing "unnecessary" federal funding and preventing federal funds from paying for gender-affirming surgeries. [[nid:632424]] The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue "universal" injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. The ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," wrote Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to seek wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Maryland-based US District Judge Deborah Boardman, who previously blocked the order nationwide, scheduled a Monday hearing after immigration rights advocates filed a motion asking her to treat the case as a class action and block the policy nationwide again. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. 'Illegal and cruel' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24 per cent of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52 per cent opposed it. Among Democrats, 5 per cent supported ending it, with 84 per cent opposed. Among Republicans, 43 per cent supported ending it, with 24 per cent opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process.
