Trump shares fawning private letter from NATO chief
Mark Rutte has praised the US leader for his extraordinary action against Iran
US President Donald Trump has posted screenshots of a private text message from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, in which he showered the American leader with praise for "decisive action in Iran."
The message, which Trump shared on his Truth Social platform, appears to have been sent ahead of the two-day NATO summit in The Hague, which started on Tuesday.
"Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer," Rutte wrote, aparently referring to the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites which took place on June 22.
In his message, Rutte also promised "another big success" for Trump in The Hague, saying that all NATO members had agreed to spend 5% of their GDP on defense. "You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done," he wrote.
A NATO spokesperson has confirmed to the BBC that the text is authentic.
Truth Social / @realDonaldTrump
Trump has long insisted that NATO members in Europe should significantly increase their military budgets, which many have pledged to do in recent years, citing the Russian-Ukraine conflict.
Spain has reportedly decided to opt out of the 5% spending target, after Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez rejected the idea as "not only unreasonable but also counterproductive." Madrid is currently below the existing 2% spending threshold, with only about 1.3% of its GDP allocated for the military.
Rutte, however, told journalists on Monday that NATO rules don't allow such exemptions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
25 minutes ago
- CBC
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, in case on Trump birthright citizenship order
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, where all the justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in favour, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize 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. 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. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens to prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority. Complaints about 'judge shopping' The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive, even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The issue is intertwined with concerns of "judge shopping," where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the decision as a win to stop "the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump." Republicans and conservatives in particular have long complained about a single judge enjoining matters for the entire country, though Democrats were aggrieved during Joe Biden's administration when a single judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling on the abortion medication mifepristone. Ultimately, the Supreme Court essentially rejected that judge's interpretation in a 9-0 ruling. No ruling on birthright citizenship The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." 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." Not all countries automatically confer citizenship at birth. Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism. Mobile users: View the document (PDF KB) (Text KB) CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content In Canada, citizenship is overwhelmingly granted to any child born on its soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, following the principle of jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil." There are a few exceptions, notably for the children of foreign diplomats. The current Liberal government in Ottawa is looking through legislation to expand citizenship to children born outside of Canada to Canadian parents. String of court rulings allow White House to enact agenda The U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, 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.
Toronto Sun
34 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
Published Jun 27, 2025 • 2 minute read Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on May 15, 2025. Photo by Kent Nishimura / Bloomberg WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' _ is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. Toronto Raptors Toronto Raptors Music Sunshine Girls Canada
Winnipeg Free Press
34 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Hungary's LGBTQ+ community defies government ban on Pride march
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's LGBTQ+ community is preparing for a face-off with the country's autocratic government, and plans to push ahead with a march in the capital on Saturday despite a government ban and threats of legal repercussions. The populist party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in March fast-tracked a law through parliament that made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride — marking its 30th anniversary this year — was the explicit target of the law. But on Friday, Pride organizers along with Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and Vice President of the European Parliament Nicolae Stefanuta said the march will take place Saturday despite official threats of heavy fines for participants and even jail time for the liberal mayor. They expect the march to be the largest ever Pride event in Hungary. 'The government is always fighting against an enemy against which they have to protect Hungarian people … This time, it is sexual minorities that are the target,' Karácsony told a news conference. 'We believe there should be no first and second class citizens, so we decided to stand by this event.' A crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights Critics of the Pride ban and other Hungarian legislation targeting LGBTQ+ communities say the policies are reminiscent of similar restrictions against sexual minorities in Russia. Hungary's recent law allows authorities to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals that attend a prohibited event. Being caught could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586.) Orbán, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally in the European Union, has in recent years prohibited same-sex adoption and banned any LGBTQ+ content including in television, films, advertisements and literature that is available to minors. His government argues exposure to such content negatively affects children's development. But opponents say the moves are part of a broader effort to scapegoat sexual minorities and consolidate his conservative base. Fines and facial recognition After police rejected several requests by organizers to register the Pride march, citing the recent law, Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said does not require police approval. But Hungary's government has remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it is sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. In a video on Facebook this week, Hungary's justice minister, Bence Tuzson, warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend is punishable by up to a year in prison. At the news conference Friday, Karácsony sought to dispel fears that police would impose heavy fines on Pride attendees. 'Police have only one task tomorrow: to guarantee the safety and security of those gathered at the event,' he said. Speaking to state radio on Friday, Orbán said that attending Pride 'will have legal consequences, but it can't reach the level of physical abuse.' 'The police could disperse such events, they have the right to do so. But Hungary is a civilized country,' he said. Right-wing counter-demonstrations On Thursday, radical right-wing party Our Homeland Movement announced it had requested police approval to hold assemblies at numerous locations across the city, many of them on the same route as the Pride march. Later, a neo-Nazi group said it too would gather Saturday at Budapest City Hall, from which the Pride march is set to depart. The group declared that only 'white, Christian, heterosexual men and women' were welcome to attend its demonstration. European officials respond Hungary's Pride ban has prompted a backlash from many of the country's partners and allies. Over 30 foreign embassies signed a joint statement this week expressing their commitment to 'every person's rights to equal treatment and nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted on social platform X on Wednesday, calling on Hungarian authorities to allow Pride to proceed 'without fear of any criminal or administrative sanctions against the organizers or participants.' More than 70 members of the European Parliament, as well as other officials from countries around Europe, are expected to participate in Saturday's march. Lahbib, the European Commissioner, said Friday that 'all eyes are on Budapest' as Pride marchers defy the government's ban. 'The EU is not neutral on hate,' she said. 'We cannot stay passive. We cannot tolerate what is intolerable.'
