‘Daddy's home': Love-bombed in The Hague, Trump basks in Nato flattery
WASHINGTON, June 27 — It will go down as the summit where US President Donald Trump learned to stop worrying and love Nato.
Trump revelled in gushing praise from leaders in The Hague — including being called 'daddy' by alliance chief Mark Rutte — and a pledge to boost defence spending as he had demanded.
But it went further than just lapping up flattery. Trump also spoke of what sounded like an almost religious conversion to Nato, after years of bashing other members as freeloaders and threatening to leave.
'I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit differently,' Trump said at his closing press conference on Wednesday.
'I watched the heads of these countries get up, and the love and the passion that they showed for their country was unbelievable. I've never seen quite anything like it.
'It was really moving to see it.'
A day after returning to the White House, Trump still sounded uncharacteristically touchy-feely about his time with his 31 Nato counterparts.
'A wonderful day with incredible and caring Leaders,' he posted on his Truth Social platform yesterday.
Turnaround
It was a remarkable turnaround from the US president's first term.
Trump repeatedly berated allies as not paying up and threatened to pull the United States out of Nato as part of his wider disdain for international institutions and alliances.
At his first summit in 2017 in Brussels, Trump memorably shoved aside Montenegro's prime minister Dusko Markovic as he made his way to the front of the stage.
A year later Trump publicly lambasted Germany and privately talked about wanting to quit.
But this time Nato leaders had carefully choreographed the trip. They massaged the numbers to give Trump the defence spending deal he craved.
And while Trump headed to the summit dropping F-bombs in frustration at a shaky Iran-Israel ceasefire, Nato leaders love-bombed him from the moment he arrived.
The Netherlands put him up overnight in the Dutch king's royal palace and gave him a royal dinner and breakfast — 'beautiful,' according to Trump — while Nato organisers kept the summit deliberately short.
Frederick Kempe, the chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council, said Trump had 'waxed poetic' about Nato in a way he had never done before.
'Trump — the vilifier of European deadbeats on defence and crusader against allies for what he sees as unfair trade practices — sounded like an altered man,' he said in a commentary.
'Daddy's Home'
The question now is what it means for Nato when the alliance's priorities end up guided by one man.
The final summit statement's language on Russia's invasion of Ukraine was watered down from previous years. It also made no mention of Ukraine's push to join Nato.
Reporters were not allowed into Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The move was partly because of their Oval Office bust-up in February, but it also deprived Zelensky of the set-piece he had craved.
'The biggest loser was Ukraine,' said Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute in London.
Trump also hinted at what lies in store for any backsliders on the defence spending pledge, threatening to make Spain 'pay' on trade over its resistance to commit to the new target.
As with any relationship, the pressure will now be on Nato to keep up the first flush of love over the three summits that are due to take place over the rest of Trump's second term.
'The real worry is that Nato will be unable to keep up the hype,' said Arnold.
For now, though, Trump and his administration seem to be content.
As he arrived back in Washington, the White House posted a video of summit highlights, with the caption: 'Daddy's Home.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -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. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices 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 ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "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," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. 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." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. 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. 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. 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." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. '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. 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." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The 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. 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." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." 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. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
US, China seal framework deal on trade, rare earths in focus
BEIJING: China confirmed Friday details on the framework of a trade deal with the United States, saying Washington would lift "restrictive measures" while Beijing would "review and approve" items under export controls. A top priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defence equipment. China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licences in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to blistering tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's products. China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export licence approvals for rare earths. They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month. A White House official told AFP on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had "agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement." That clarification came after the US president told an event that Washington had "just signed" a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details. Beijing confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached. "It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway," a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement. It said both sides had "further confirmed the details of the framework." Under the deal, China "will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law." "The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China," the commerce ministry said. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by early September, indicating more agreements could be concluded although likely extending past an upcoming deadline. Speaking to Fox Business ahead of a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in on dozens of economies, Bessent reiterated that there are 18 key partners Washington is focused on pacts with. "If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labour Day," Bessent said. That holiday falls on September 1. About the July date, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg Television on Thursday that "we're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind." Countries have been moving to negotiate and reach trade pacts with Washington to avoid further tariff hikes following a 10 per cent levy Trump imposed on most trading partners in April. Wall Street's major indexes bounced on hopes for deals with China and others. The broad-based S&P 500 hit a new record in a stunning comeback from lows in April, while most stock markets rose in Europe and Asia indexes were mixed. The White House suggested Thursday that the Trump administration could extend the July deadline. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday: "Perhaps it could be extended, but that's a decision for the president to make." She added: "The deadline is not critical." "The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline," she said.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
US-China deal speeds up rare earth exports from China
WASHINGTON: The United States and China have resolved issues surrounding shipments of rare earth minerals and magnets to the U.S., Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday, ironing out a dispute that stalled a deal reached in May. As part of its retaliation against new U.S. tariffs, China suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, upending supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. During U.S.-China trade talks in May in Geneva, Beijing committed to removing the measures imposed since April 2, but those critical materials were not moving as fast as agreed, Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business Network, so the U.S. put countermeasures in place. 'I am confident now that we -- as agreed, the magnets will flow,' Bessent said. Efforts to resolve the dispute included a phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping which led to teams from both sides meeting again in London, as negotiators try to end a trade war between the world's biggest economies. Trump said on Thursday the United States had signed a deal with China the previous day, but did not provide details. A White House official said the United States has reached an agreement with China on how to expedite rare earth shipments to the U.S. 'The administration and China agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement' that involved expediting their shipments to the U.S., the official said on Thursday. China's commerce ministry said on Friday the two countries have confirmed details on the framework of implementing the Geneva trade talks consensus. It said China will approve export applications of controlled items in accordance with the law. It did not mention rare earths. China has dual-use restrictions in place on rare earths which it takes 'very seriously' and has been vetting buyers to ensure that materials are not diverted for U.S. military uses, according to an industry source. This has slowed down the licensing process. The Geneva deal faltered over China's curbs on critical minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls of its own preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, aircraft and other goods to China. In early June, Reuters reported China had granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three U.S. automakers, according to two sources familiar with the matter, as supply chain disruptions began to surface. Later in the month, Trump said there was a deal with China in which Beijing would supply magnets and rare earth minerals while the U.S. would allow Chinese students in its colleges and universities. While the agreement shows potential progress following months of trade uncertainty and disruption since Trump took office in January, it also underscores the long road ahead to a final, definitive trade deal between the two economic rivals.
