Call him Daddy … How flattery and fanfare warmed Trump to Nato
There was little doubt about it, the survival of the 75-year alliance was at stake. But with Iran firing missiles at US bases and Europe divided once again over defence spending, would the president of the United States turn up?
By the end of the week, though, they were calling Donald Trump 'daddy' at Nato.
The conclusion of a summit that many feared would result in browbeating not backslapping left leaders across Europe sighing with relief. 'It didn't get out of hand,' said Dick Schoof, the Dutch prime minister, expressing a 'combination of relief and happiness'.
One diplomat went further. 'We made it through the minefield,' they said. 'There was so much that could have gone wrong, beginning with a no show. There were no bust ups, the agreement made it over the line and the mood music was good even if it was too cheesy for squeamish tastes.'
The subjects of division were many, not least European reluctance to endorse America's bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, actions which President Macron of France and others decried as illegal. Then there were the problems closer to home to consider. The Spanish, led by the embattled prime minister Pedro Sánchez, were digging in over defence spending. A summit communiqué with a firm nod in the direction of Washington had said the members would finally commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence, a long-standing demand from Trump.
Sánchez, rocked by a corruption scandal at home and constantly in the headlines for the wrong reasons, seemed set on asserting Spanish sovereignty by taking on Trump. It might have looked good to Spaniards, but it looked bad for Nato.
Anxiety was heightened as the ceasefire in the Middle East threatened to unravel. Then, there was a leak to contend when a broadcaster reported that Trump would stay the night as the guest of the Dutch king. Hardly Watergate, but embarrassment was to be avoided at all costs. 'Is he coming? Until he steps on the red carpet, I won't believe it,' said one official, 'I am genuinely terrified.'
• Behind the scenes of Trump's ceasefire deal
Mark Rutte, the Dutch Nato secretary-general often described as the 'fluisteraar' or 'Trump whisperer' was taking no chances. 'Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran,' he wrote before Trump had set foot on Air Force One. 'You are now flying to another great success in the Hague,' Rutte added as he himself flew into a storm for, effectively, lending Nato's backing to Trump's actions in the Middle East. There was a promise to conclude: 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your success!'
Trump was on his way but he was in a bad mood. 'They don't know what the f*** they're doing,' he said of Israel and Iran as he left the White House for the Hague. It got worse. On the flight across the Atlantic, he questioned whether the US would automatically come to the aid of European allies, such as Spain, under the alliance's Article 5 mutual defence clause. 'Depends on your definition,' he said.
But the Dutch, like other nations that still have a royal family, had a secret weapon to deploy. After emerging from the presidential jet in his white Maga cap, Trump was whisked off to be welcomed with full fanfare by King Willem-Alexander. There was charred tuna, veal and chocolate cake in the splendour of the Oranjezaal, or Orange room, in the Huis ten Bosch palace.
Trump sat between the king and Giorgia Meloni, the populist Italian prime minister and a rare European admirer of the president. He was clearly enjoying himself. There was a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran to celebrate. 'I had a good line of sight,' said Schoof. 'The president was very animated in conversation, there was a relaxed atmosphere.'
An even more relaxed atmosphere was to be found where Trump would spend the night. He had an unprecedented invitation by the Dutch royal couple to stay the night in their 17th-century place that nestles in green woodlands at the Hague.
The following morning Trump had breakfast with Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima, describing them as 'beautiful and spectacular people'. Invited to wax lyrical about Trump, the Dutch king merely said: 'What happens in the palace, stays in the palace.'
Then came the moment that could for many people define Trump's visit to the Netherlands. Speaking alongside Rutte, Trump was discussing how the Middle East powers were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard'. 'Daddy sometimes has to use strong language,' interrupted Rutte, a reference to Trump's previous use of the F-word. Trump was delighted and the cameras caught Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, shaking his head in disbelief and laughing.
All of a sudden Trump was ebullient and the mood was good. Sánchez backed off his fight, choosing not to mention spending targets and talking about Spain's important military contribution to the alliance, promising to meet the operational targets. Many leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, flagged military spending on US hardware, such as F-35 fighter jets and Patriot air defence systems.
Rutte, though, would face a backlash for his supplicant approach to Trump. He admitted that his comments were 'a bit of a question of taste'. The president was not complaining. 'He likes me,' he said of the Dutchman. 'And if he doesn't, I'll come back and I'll hit him hard. He did it very affectionately. You're my daddy.' It was all a bit much for many working behind the scenes. 'We were told that Rutte was a Trump whisperer but this is indecent,' said one diplomat.
• 'Daddy' Trump takes centre stage as Nato bows to his demands
Schoof, as summit host, described the Nato gathering as 'historic' but was less sure how history would judge the flattery. 'I don't know,' he admitted, 'for us, the summit had to be a success. You do everything to put the government leaders at ease. Some more than others.'
It's not only Europeans paying their way that was pleasing Trump. His new nickname was too. The White House released a video showing the president as he glad-handled assorted alliance leaders set to a song by Usher, who sings 'so all my ladies, say, 'Hey, hey, hey, daddy'.
After the song came the 'official TRUMP DADDY shirt', sold by the Trump National Committee, a fundraising vehicle, which gives 77 per cent of the cash to Trump's Never Surrender campaign used for his legal, consulting, travel, staffing and other expenses and funding candidates.
A minimum donation of $35 will buy a bright orange T-shirt emblazoned with Trump's mugshot and the single word 'DADDY' in black capital letters. The shirt colour may have been chosen to reflect Rutte's home country.
'When Biden was president, we were LAUGHED at on the world stage,' Trump wrote in an email to supporters. 'But thanks to your favourite president (ME!) we are respected once again. Moments ago, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte called me DADDY on the world stage. How nice! So for a limited time, I want YOU to own the official TRUMP DADDY shirt!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Welfare reforms: What concessions has the Government made?
Last-minute concessions to the Government's controversial welfare reforms have been welcomed by some campaigners but described as not good enough by others. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at what the changes are and how Labour MPs and disability groups have reacted. – What had the Government originally planned? In March, reforms to the welfare system – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – were announced. The Government said the changes, including restricting access to the main disability benefit known as Pip (personal independence payment) and the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC), were expected to make welfare savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30. With around 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year', the Government argued the current situation was unsustainable. An impact assessment published alongside the Bill included estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules would see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year. Changes to UC were expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. Overall, as a result of the changes, it was estimated some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, across Great Britain were likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs by the end of the decade. – What concessions have been made? In a late-night letter to MPs, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall conceded two changes she said would 'strengthen the Bill'. In recognition of the 'uncertainty and anxiety' caused by the proposed changes, she said all current Pip recipients would keep their benefits, saying only new claims from November 2026 will come under the tightened eligibility requirements. An impact assessment had stated that 370,000 current recipients were set to lose Pip entitlement across England and Wales. Ms Kendall also vowed all those currently receiving the UC health element, as well as new claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria, will have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'. The Work and Pensions Secretary has also promised a review of the Pip assessment, led by social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, which will have input from disabled people 'to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future'. – What are disability groups saying? Mikey Erhardt, from Disability Rights UK, accused the Government of 'playing politics with our lives', insisting the Bill must still be pulled. He said the changes will mean 'a benefits system where future generations of disabled people receive less support than disabled people today' and added that, in making the original announcement of cuts, the Government had 'prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of disabled citizens'. Mr Erhardt added: 'Despite seemingly rowing back on some of the worst aspects of its plans, the Government is still attempting to slash billions of pounds from a system that doesn't provide enough support as it stands.' The MS Society said the Government was simply 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster', and urged MPs 'not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions'. Food bank network Trussell welcomed the 'significant' concessions but said the proposals 'still present a bleak future for future claimants and still risk placing the Government's commitments to end the need for emergency food and tackle poverty in serious jeopardy'. – What are Labour MPs saying? Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, described the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms. She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.' Health minister Stephen Kinnock said he is confident the welfare reforms – being brought under the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will pass a vote in the Commons on Tuesday in the wake of the concessions. But some Labour MPs are still not satisfied, with Nadia Whittome saying the concessions are 'nowhere near good enough', vowing to still vote against the Bill unless 'serious' proposals are made to 'protect the dignity of disabled people'. Speaking to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, she said MPs she had spoken to 'are sticking to their position because we understand that we are answerable to our constituents'. Ms Whittome added: 'If the Government doesn't pull the Bill, doesn't consult properly with disabled people and come back to MPs with a serious proposal that protects the dignity of disabled people, I will vote against and I will be far from the only one.'
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the UK spend on welfare – and how much will it rise?
Welfare spending is forecast to rise sharply over the next few years, driven by the UK's ageing population and an increase in the number of people receiving health and disability benefits. Here, the PA news agency looks at the latest figures and projections for social security and welfare expenditure. – How much does the UK spend in total? The Government is forecast to have spent £313.0 billion on welfare in 2024/25, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). This is the equivalent of 10.9% of UK GDP (gross domestic product, or the total value of the economy). The OBR forecasts annual spending on welfare to reach £373.4 billion in 2029/30. This is up £60.4 billion on the figure for 2024/25 – an increase of nearly a fifth. Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP is forecast to fall slightly to 10.8%, however. – What takes up the biggest share of the welfare budget? Spending on pensioners. Some £150.7 billion was spent on pensioners in 2024/25, accounting for nearly half (48%) of the total welfare budget. Besides the state pension, this spending also includes pensioner housing benefit, pension credit and the winter fuel payment. Spending on pensioners is forecast to reach £181.8 billion by 2029/30, but this would still be just under half (49%) of the full welfare budget. – How does the rest of the welfare budget break down? The next largest chunk of spending goes on Universal Credit, which made up 28% of the 2024/25 budget (£87.8 billion). It was followed by disability benefits at 13% (£41.4 billion) and child benefit at 4% (£13.3 billion), with other types of spending – including social security in Northern Ireland – accounting for 6% (£19.9 billion). – Is spending set to increase for all types of welfare? No. The child benefit budget is forecast to remain largely flat, at £13.6 billion in 2029/30, compared with £13.3 billion in 2024/25. By contrast, spending on disability benefits is forecast to jump to £56.3 billion by 2029/30, up from £41.4 billion in 2024/25. Spending on Universal Credit will reach £99.0 billion, up from £87.8 billion. – Why is welfare spending rising? The OBR identifies two main drivers of the increase. The first is higher spending on pensioners. This is because of the UK's ageing population and the 'triple lock', which guarantees pensions will rise each year by whichever is highest: the annual rate of inflation, average growth in earnings, or 2.5%. Of the forecast £60.4 billion extra spending on welfare in 2029/30, pensioners are responsible for just over half of the amount, at £31.3 billion (51%). The second factor identified by the OBR as driving an increase in welfare spending is the rise in people eligible for health and disability benefits. Spending on disability benefits, which includes disability living allowance and personal independence payments, accounts for £14.9 billion (25%) of the £60.4 billion extra spending on welfare in 2029/30. – How does spending on health and disability benefits break down by age group? The OBR defines health and disability benefits as covering the following entitlements: the standard allowance and health element spending for Universal Credit claimants; employment and support allowance; incapacity benefit; severe disablement allowance; income support for incapacity; disability living allowance; personal independence payment; attendance allowance; spending on the Universal Credit carer's element; carer's allowance, and income support for carers. Spending on all these benefits was estimated to be £75.7 billion in 2024/25, three-quarters of which (75% or £56.9 billion) went to working-age adults. Just under a fifth (19%, or £14.2 billion) went to pensioners, while 6% (£4.5 billion) went to children. Although the amount spent on health and disability benefits is forecast to rise to £97.9 billion in 2029/30, the proportions are expected to remain broadly the same: 74% on working-age adults (£72.3 billion), 19% on pensioners (£18.3 billion) and 7% on children (£7.0 billion). – How does welfare spending compare with other government departments? In 2023/24, actual spending on health and disability benefits was £66.3 billion. This was more than than the total departmental expenditure on defence (£57.6 billion) or transport (£32.6 billion), but well below the figure for education (£127.0 billion) and overall health and social care spending (£196.7 billion), according to the latest Treasury data. Total expenditure by the Department for Work & Pensions stood at £275.1 billion in 2023/24, up from £239.1 billion in 2022/23 and the highest figure among all government departments.
BreakingNews.ie
37 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Talks on nuclear programme complicated by US strikes, Iran says
The possibility of new negotiations with the US on Iran's nuclear programme has been 'complicated' by the American attack on three of the sites, a top diplomat has said. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told state television that the attacks had caused 'serious damage'. Advertisement The US was one of the parties to the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to limits on its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for sanctions relief and other benefits. The deal unravelled after President Donald Trump pulled the US out unilaterally during his first term. Mr Trump has suggested he is interested in new talks with Iran and said the two sides would meet next week. Mr Araghchi left open the possibility that his country would again enter talks on its nuclear programme, but suggested it would not be any time soon. Advertisement 'No agreement has been made for resuming the negotiations,' he said. 'No time has been set, no promise has been made and we haven't even talked about restarting the talks.' The American decision to intervene militarily 'made it more complicated and more difficult' for talks, Mr Araghchi said. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, targeting its nuclear sites, defence systems, high-ranking military officials and atomic scientists. In 12 days of strikes, Israel said it killed some 30 Iranian commanders and hit eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. Advertisement More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. The US stepped in on Sunday to hit Iran's three most important sites with a wave of cruise missiles and bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 bombers, designed to penetrate deep into the ground to damage the heavily-fortified targets. Iran, in retaliation, fired missiles at a US base in Qatar on Monday but caused no known casualties. Advertisement Mr Trump said the American attacks 'completely and fully obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme, though Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday accused the US president of exaggerating the damage, saying the strikes did not 'achieve anything significant'. There has been speculation that Iran moved much of its highly-enriched uranium before the strikes, something it told UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it planned to do. Even if that turns out to be true, IAEA director Rafael Grossi told Radio France International that the damage done to the Fordo site, which was built into a mountain, 'is very, very, very considerable'. Among other things, he said, centrifuges are 'quite precise machines' and it's 'not possible' that the concussion from multiple 30,000-pound bombs would not have caused 'important physical damage'. Advertisement 'These centrifuges are no longer operational,' he said. Mr Araghchi himself acknowledged that 'the level of damage is high, and it's serious damage'. He added that Iran had not yet decided upon whether to allow IAEA inspectors in to assess the damage, but that they would be kept out 'for the time being'.
