White House posts cringe-worthy ‘Daddy's Home' video after NATO chief clarifies comments
The White House has welcomed President Donald Trump back from Wednesday's NATO summit in the Netherlands with a cringe-inducing social media video set to the 2010 song 'Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)' by Usher.
The clip, a montage of Trump stepping out of Air Force One back on American soil followed by choice scenes from the summit, is a reference to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte jokingly nicknaming the president 'daddy' during their sitdown yesterday.
The pair had been discussing the Israel - Iran conflict and the swift collapse of the ceasefire Trump had hailed as marking the end of the '12 Day War' after the two sides accused each other of violating its terms.
'They've had it,' Trump said. 'They've got a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard. You know, they fight like hell. You can't stop them, let them fight for two, three minutes, then it's easier to stop them…'
Rutte interjected: 'And then daddy has to, sometimes, use strong language.'
The Dutchman was referring to the president's comments on the White House South Lawn a day earlier, when he had angrily told the press that neither Israel nor Iran 'knows what the f*** they're doing.'
Trump responded by chuckling and adding: 'Strong language, yeah, every once and a while.'
The president was later asked about the nickname and whether it implied he saw other countries as 'children,' causing Secretary of State Marco Rubio, standing behind him, to crack up uncontrollably.
'He likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know, I'll come back, and I'll hit him hard,' Trump responded. 'He did it very affectionately. 'Daddy, you're my daddy.''
Rutte later clarified that he was trying to compare the president's relationship with Europe to that of a father with his family.
'What I said is that sometimes, in Europe, I hear sometimes countries saying, 'Hey, Mark, will the U.S. stay with us?' And I said that sounds a little bit like a small child asking his daddy, 'Hey, are you still staying with the family?''
This is not the first time the billionaire real estate tycoon and father of five has been referred to as 'daddy'.
In the final weeks of last year's presidential race, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, with whom Trump has recently fallen out over the Iran intervention, gave an incredibly disturbing address on the Republican's behalf at a rally in Duluth, Georgia, in which he likened the United States to a 'bad little girl' in need of a 'vigorous spanking.'
'There has to be a point at which dad comes home,' Carlson told his audience, referring to Trump.
'Yeah, that's right. Dad comes home. And he's p***ed. Dad is p***ed. And when dad gets home, you know what he says? 'You've been a bad girl. You've been a bad little girl and you're getting a vigorous spanking right now. You're getting a vigorous spanking because you've been a bad girl. And it has to be this way.''
MSNBC analyst Chris Hayes reacted to Carlson's creepy analogy by observing: 'The Republican Party is now very much explicitly running on a campaign of male dominion. Trump's your daddy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pete Hegseth's wild tantrum at media for 'overshadowing' Trump Iran strikes amid devastating leaks nukes weren't obliterated
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went ballistic on reporters at a Pentagon press conference Thursday, lashing out at reports that U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were ineffective. The defense secretary was joined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, to tout to reporters the 'historic success' of last weekend's B-2 bombing run. A fired-up Hegseth was also adamant that journalists in the Pentagon press corps are decidedly anti-Trump. 'You cheer against Trump so hard, it's like in your DNA and blood,' he accused the press in the room. 'You have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes.' 'Your people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful, it's irresponsible,' he charged. The press conference - a rarity for Hegseth - came within days of CNN reporting that the U.S. strikes would only set back Iran 's nuclear sites by a couple of months. The report cited seven individuals briefed on a battle damage assessment done by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the Iranian sites. It directly contradicted President Donald Trump and the defense secretary's claim that the sites were destroyed - and clearly enraged the administration. CIA Director John Ratcliffe asserted the strikes had 'severely damaged' Iran's nuclear program, according to a New York Times report, a declaration that fell far short of the president's claims of total obliteration. When pressed on whether the strikes took out Iran's enriched uranium, Hegseth responded cagily. 'There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations,' he explained without offering further evidence that the uranium was destroyed. He went on to lambaste CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and other outlets that reported on the preliminary report completed by an intelligence agency within the Pentagon. Unnamed sources, who reportedly have seen the Defense Intelligence Agency report, say that the sites could be online within months. The centrifuges used to enrich uranium went undamaged and the country's stockpile of enriched uranium was possibly relocated ahead of the strikes, they said. The DIA assessment concluded with 'low confidence' that the site sustained 'moderate to severe' damage, Hegseth told reporters at NATO on Wednesday. The administration, Hegseth said Wednesday, believes it was 'far more likely severe and obliterated.' Hegseth also had a notable clash with his former Fox News colleague Jennifer Griffin, the outlet's Pentagon correspondent, during the briefing. Griffin, a veteran Pentagon reporter who's been with the channel for decades, asked Hegseth to clarify whether Iran's already enriched uranium was destroyed by the U.S. strikes. 'There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations,' the Pentagon secretary responded cagily. Griffin then asked: 'That's not the question, though. It's about highly enriched uranium. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain, or some of it?' 'There were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance? Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?' 'Of course, we're watching every single aspect,' Hegseth responded before bizarrely turning on his old colleague. 'But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the President says.' The veteran Pentagon reporter immediately interjected, highlighting to Hegseth how she was the first journalist to reveal how the operation targeted the nuclear facility's ventilation shafts and more. 'I was the first to report about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night, and in fact, I was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission, with great accuracy,' the Fox News correspondent retorted. 'So I take issue with that,' she added.
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Netanyahu agreed to end Gaza war after US strike on Iran
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu agreed on a rapid end to the war in Gaza during a phone call after the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli media has reported quoting a source 'familiar with the conversation'. The two leaders agreed that four Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt , would jointly govern the strip in place of Hamas , Israel Hayom is reporting. Leaders of the Hamas terror group would be exiled and all hostages released, a source is said to have told the outlet. But it remains unclear how such a proposal would be implemented, with Hamas vowing it will not leave the territory and Arab states repeatedly asserting that they would not step into a governing role. Trump and Netanyahu held the call on Monday a day after US bombers hit nuclear targets in Iran , with a source reportedly describing the call as 'euphoric'. They were joined on the call by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, according to the report. Under the agreement, Palestinians who wished to leave Gaza would be taken in by unnamed states, the men reportedly said, and Saudi Arabia and Syria would establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Israel in turn would express support for a future two-state solution on the condition that the Palestinian Authority bring in reforms, according to the report. The United States would recognise Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank as part of the agreement, it also said. Israel Hayom reports that the 'ambitious' nature of the plan explains Trump's fury over Israel's planned retaliation against Iran for its 'minor' breach of the US-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday. Trump called the Israeli prime minister and warned him to 'stop the planes', reportedly telling him he did not understand why Netanyahu was 'disrupting' their agreed upon 'plan for peace' because of a 'small tactical incident'. The outlet also claims that Trump's post calling for an end to Netanyahu's trial was also linked to the plan. The Mail has contacted the White House for comment regarding the report. It comes as Trump has received praise from world leaders for his part in ending the 12-day conflict, with suggestions that the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities forced Tehran to the negotiating table. Among those who commended him was Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spoke to reporters as he departed from the NATO summit. 'I told Trump that, referring to his efforts in the Israel-Iran ceasefire, the same level of effort is expected to help end the conflicts in Gaza as well as in the Russia-Ukraine war,' Erdogan said. In March, the US and Israel rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of Gaza, which was designed to allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living in the Strip to remain. The proposal was backed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, and was drawn up as an alternative to Trump's suggestion for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population. Trump suggested that the US could 'own' Gaza and turn it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'. His suggestion was deemed 'unacceptable' by the Arab League and sparked outrage across the world, with many condemning it as amounting to the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes. 'This is against international law and, we have said this time and again, this is not a way to treat this man-made crisis,' Assistant Secretary General of the Arab League, Hossam Zaki, told the BBC. The UN estimates that more than 1.9 million people have been internally displaced in Gaza amid Israel's unrelenting bombardment of the territory, which has been ongoing for more than 600 days. The war in Gaza began when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, killing nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 others hostage into Gaza. In response, Israel launched a military campaign that has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, according to local health authorities in Gaza. At least 118 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since Wednesday, local health authorities said, including some shot near an aid distribution point, the latest in a series of such incidents. Twenty hostages remain in captivity in Gaza, while Hamas is also holding the bodies of 30 who have died. Israel this afternoon announced that it has stopped aid entering Gaza for two days to prevent it being seized by Hamas. Images have been circulated of masked men on aid trucks. Clan leaders have said these individuals were protecting aid, and are not Hamas stealing it from civilians. Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer later told reporters that aid was still entering Gaza from the south, but did not specify whether any supplies were entering the north. A United Nations source said that all aid that was due to enter northern Gaza had been put on hold.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain has just spent £1bn on new F-35s. Were we right to do so?
For a Labour government keen to showcase its defence credentials to the world – and particularly Donald Trump – it was the perfect party piece. Ahead of this week's Nato summit in the Hague, Sir Keir Starmer announced the purchase of 12 new F-35A fighter jets, ordered from the United States at a cost of nearly £1 billion. Armed with state-of-the art technology and radar jammers, the so-called 'flying computer' can operate almost invisible to enemy eyes: as its maker Lockheed Martin boasts, 'it is built to conduct missions others can't'. More importantly, it can carry bombs that others can't. The F-35A will enable Britain to carry US B61s – tactical nuclear weapons that could be deployed on a battlefield in the event of a war with Russia. The idea is to widen Britain's range of nuclear response options, which currently rest only in the much bigger strategic missiles carried on its Trident submarine fleet. In nuclear weapons terms, that is the difference between a scalpel and a sledgehammer – and while the purchase has horrified disarmament campaigners, Sir Keir insists it is a necessary evil. 'In an era of radical uncertainty, we can no longer take peace for granted,' he declared. What has also not been taken for granted, however, is the F-35's complete reliability. For despite being billed as America's foremost combat jet, critics say it has suffered more than its fair share of glitches during its 19-year flying history. In 2019, the military magazine Defense News revealed that Pentagon chiefs had identified precisely 857 'deficiencies' in the aircraft's design, including seven that were potentially 'critical'. Most have since been dealt with, but to this day the F-35 programme remains dogged by technical hitches and concerns about reliability and maintenance. Britain has been a major customer of the F-35s, and already owns 48 F-35Bs – a variation on the F-35A that also has vertical take-off and landing capabilities, making it suitable for use on aircraft carriers. Worldwide, however, at least a dozen F-35s have been involved in accidents or serious technical failures since 2018. Sometimes the cause has been malfunctioning headsets or software failures; on other occasions pilots have simply struggled with the complex technology. In January, an F-35A fighter jet crashed during a training session at an Air Force base in Alaska after an in-flight malfunction, forcing the pilot to eject. Three years ago, a South Korean Air Force F-35A made a belly landing after a bird strike and a landing gear malfunction. Just this week, it was revealed that a British F-35B serving with an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean has been stranded on the Indian mainland for more than 10 days after monsoon rains forced it to make an emergency landing. A technical issue with the craft was reportedly identified after it landed, and a British Merlin helicopter from the aircraft carrier flew technicians in to try to fix the suspected hydraulic failure. But like a fancy sports car that can only be repaired by authorised dealers, the F-35 was deemed in need of a team of specialists from the UK. Meanwhile, Royal Navy chiefs are said to have turned down an offer by the Indians to move the jet out of the rain and into a hangar, for fear they might take a sneaky peak at its sensitive technologies. Problems with software updates have meant that hundreds of the planes have at times lain in hangars in the US, hindering ongoing roll-out programmes to Europe's other Nato players. Like much high-tech Pentagon equipment – especially anything nuclear-capable – the US military is cagey about the exact nature of the issues. But outsiders have not been shy in airing criticisms, among them aviation expert Bill Sweetman, a Hampshire-born former editor for Janes (a global open-source intelligence company), who now lives in the US. While Lockheed Martin hails its product as 'stealthy, speedy and the future of air dominance across the world,' Sweetman is rather less complimentary. In a book published last year, detailing the programme's problems and vast cost overruns, he famously dubbed the F-35 a ' trillion-dollar trainwreck '. Others – including a former acting defence secretary under Trump – have been equally damning, dismissing it as a 'rathole' and 'f----d up.' Sweetman paints a picture of a vast, outdated flight development programme, which began in the late 1990s when computer technology was far less developed than it is now, and has been playing catch-up ever since. As a result, he argues, the F-35 is rather like a clunky late-1990s laptop onto which lots of additional hard-drives and software have had to be awkwardly grafted. 'Operating a stealth aircraft [one designed to be invisible to radar] is always a unique challenge, in that you are also trying to minimise all the electronic signals that the plane might emit,' he says. 'But a big problem has been the design of the electronics, as how one did these things 25 years ago is very different to how they might be done today. By the late 2010s, for example, they were already running out of memory for the plane's computers, so they had to install first one new computer control system, and then another. That's very complicated and also affects the jet's avionics – how it flies. It might have been better to have had a design that kept the avionics separate from the control systems.' Lockheed Martin disputes that assessment, and compares the updates to 'how an iPhone receives a software update on a base operating system'. John Neilson, the firm's director of international media and corporate affairs, says: 'We continue to release iterations of software that will further enhance combat capabilities, operational effectiveness and readiness of the aircraft.' More than 1,000 F-35s have already been produced, several hundred of which are already in use by Nato allies or due for delivery in coming years. Sweetman believes that the programme, like many large-scale defence contracts, ended up being simply too big to abandon, and that 'every failed fix made matters worse'. Last year, members of the United States House Committee on Armed Services even argued for scaling back procurement of the planes until the problems were ironed out for good. The programme, however, is already seriously behind schedule, making matters even worse. 'They were all supposed to be delivered before 2030,' Sweetman says. 'Now that target is more like 2054.' Greg Bagwell, a retired air marshal and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, says the issues extend beyond 'teething problems'. 'The F-35 is a big and long programme, with some way yet still to go,' he says. 'And while you can excuse any teething problems… there are clearly issues.' Bagwell likens the F-35 to a thoroughbred racehorse or Formula One racing car, arguing that because of its high-performance capabilities, it was always likely to suffer occasional technical hiccups. 'But if you look at the total number of flying hours that have already been put in, the number of serious issues has been pretty low,' he adds. The plane was in action over Iran recently during the US-Israeli bombing raids, with no performance issues or combat losses. 'There is some truth to the criticisms of people like Bill Sweetman, but based on exercises and operations we've seen so far, the F-35 is well above anything else we have,' says Bagwell. Other defenders of the plane, which took part in its first combat missions against Isis in Iraq in 2019, agree that despite its problems, it is still currently peerless. Its 360-degree vision gives pilots unrivalled situational awareness, and it also has formidable electronic warfare capabilities that can overwhelm enemy air defences. As one writer put it in an article last year for the magazine European Security & Defence: 'If the task is to go and drop a pair of small precision-guided missiles through someone's roof, and return home safely – probably undetected, and certainly unmolested – then there is no better aircraft to achieve that than an F-35.' Defence analysts also point out that glitches are routine with any high-performance aircraft, and that most of the more serious ones with the F-35 – such as problems with cockpit pressure leading to pilots suffering sinus pain – have now been ironed out. The debate over the F-35s' effectiveness, however, comes amid a wider discussion about whether the military should continue investing in manned aircraft and ' Top Gun ' pilots at all. With drones now effectively dominating the battlefield in Ukraine, many wonder if the West would be better off focusing purely on unmanned planes, controlled in turn by AI technology. Among those who believe so is American entrepreneur Elon Musk, who made his feelings known on social media last year when posting a video of a drone swarm. 'Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35,' he said, adding: 'Crewed fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs. A reusable drone can do so without all the overhead of a human pilot.' Even Sweetman, however, points out that no drones currently have anything like the speed, range or weapons-carrying ability that a fighter jet has. And as the US bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities proved earlier this week, manned flights still have their uses. In an interview with The Telegraph last year, Paul Livingston, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin's UK arm, insisted the F-35's capabilities were still 'beyond anything else out there'. 'Before the F-35, if I was going to fly a mission into a peer nation's territory to strike against a well-protected target, I would need a minimum of 16 aircraft,' he said. 'You would have jamming aircraft – which, by the way, says, 'Hello, we're coming' – then you'd send in suppression of enemy air defence aircraft, because you'd have to kill the radars off, then you'd send fast strike aircraft in. 'I can now do that same mission with four F-35s and no support. And they don't need protection afterwards, because they can fight their way out.'
