Trump & NATO: How Rutte’s Flattery Risks Weakening the Alliance

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte may be the only European leader who fully appreciated President Donald Trump’s lengthy address at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. Trump publicly praised Rutte twice, calling him an “excellent Secretary General” and a “very smart man.” Subsequent bilateral talks appeared to leverage this rapport, resulting in a framework agreement regarding Greenland, temporarily easing tensions between the U.S. Administration and European allies. This episode is the latest example of Rutte’s approach to managing the U.S. President.

Rutte, and his predecessor Jens Stoltenberg, have both been described as key figures in navigating relations with Trump. Both cultivated close relationships with the president through public praise and behind-the-scenes diplomacy, successfully averting potential crises. However, their approaches differ, and the historical context is crucial. Rutte has engaged in a level of flattery that some consider excessive – even bordering on obsequiousness, including a reported reference to Trump as “daddy.” At a time when significant strategic shifts in the United States and ongoing Russian aggression demand a fundamental reassessment of the alliance, Rutte’s prioritization of placating the U.S. President risks hindering the urgently needed “Europeanization” of NATO. While potentially successful in the short term, this strategy ultimately risks weakening, rather than strengthening, the alliance.

Stoltenberg’s Playbook for Managing Trump

Historically, the NATO Secretary General has often been viewed as a largely administrative figure, with limited independent power. Traditionally, the role has been filled by European politicians nearing the end of their careers. However, this perception is evolving. Emerging research suggests that the Secretary General plays an increasingly important role, particularly during crises, within major international organizations like NATO.

In 2021, research published in the journal International Affairs detailed how then-Secretary General Stoltenberg demonstrated a “striking degree of agency in helping NATO survive” Trump’s first term. The U.S. President repeatedly criticized the alliance and threatened withdrawal. The research, based on over 20 interviews with NATO and national officials, identified three key tactics employed by Stoltenberg. First, he publicly flattered Trump, praising his “leadership on defense spending” and crediting him with securing an additional $100 billion in allied defense expenditure. Trump responded positively to this praise, acknowledging Stoltenberg’s recognition where others had not.

Second, Stoltenberg utilized his procedural authority as chair of the North Atlantic Council to manage a potentially disastrous situation at the 2018 NATO Brussels summit. Following a contentious meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump threatened to pursue a unilateral course of action if his burden-sharing demands were not met. Recognizing the danger, Stoltenberg convened an impromptu crisis meeting on burden-sharing, an unusual move for a NATO summit. This allowed Trump to express his frustrations and pressure European allies into concessions, ultimately allowing him to claim victory.

Third, Stoltenberg built coalitions with supportive actors within the U.S. Foreign policy establishment to coordinate policy and shield NATO’s Russia policy from Trump’s direct intervention. Defense Secretary James Mattis served as Stoltenberg’s primary point of contact, enabling NATO to reinforce its defense and deterrence posture through the “readiness action plan” and the establishment of “enhanced forward presence,” despite Trump’s objections. The research concluded that Stoltenberg’s “astute leadership” was critical to the alliance’s survival.

Rutte’s Playbook for Managing Trump II

Rutte has adopted elements of Stoltenberg’s playbook. Having already established a rapport with Trump during his time as Dutch Prime Minister, Rutte continued the practice of public flattery. At the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, he reportedly described Trump as “daddy.” Prior to the summit, he sent Trump a text message, which the president subsequently shared publicly, effusively congratulating him and predicting a significant increase in European defense spending. This approach has demonstrably resonated with Trump, as evidenced by his praise at the Davos forum.

Rutte also mirrored Stoltenberg’s success in managing summit proceedings, designing the Hague summit to prevent public discord. He shortened the summit agenda and streamlined the final declaration to accommodate Trump’s attention span. The agenda focused primarily on securing a new defense spending pledge, committing allies to spending 5 percent of GDP on defense (3.5 percent on core defense and 1.5 percent on defense-related issues) by 2035. Ukraine received comparatively less attention, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky relegated to the sidelines of the meeting. The summit ultimately achieved the agreement on increased defense spending, allowing Trump to portray it as a personal triumph.

NATO has, so far, weathered the challenges posed by Trump. Rutte’s role in mitigating the president’s more disruptive impulses has been significant, including helping to de-escalate tensions over Greenland and ensuring a relatively smooth NATO summit. However, Rutte’s approach is not without its drawbacks.

One perspective suggests that Rutte’s success may be overstated, and that Europe’s threats of retaliation were instrumental in Trump’s climbdown regarding Greenland. Even if Rutte’s approach is effective in the short term, his prioritization of pleasing Trump comes at the expense of adapting NATO to a changing geopolitical landscape. A fundamental strategic reorientation of the United States toward the western hemisphere and Indo-Pacific, coupled with ideological antagonism toward Europe, necessitates a reassessment of the alliance.

Rutte’s focus on Trump diverts political capital from other critical initiatives. The Hague summit exemplified a new “era of low expectations,” achieving increased defense spending but failing to make substantial progress on issues such as support for Ukraine, burden-sharing, and strengthening Europe’s independent defense capabilities. Rutte actively discourages the “Europeanization” of NATO, dismissing calls for greater European responsibility for its own defense and suggesting that such efforts would invite U.S. Retrenchment.

“Europeanize” NATO

The NATO Secretary General must strike a delicate balance. While continuing to leverage influence with Trump to maintain U.S. Engagement, the alliance must simultaneously prepare for a future with reduced, or even absent, U.S. Support. This requires driving the “Europeanization” of NATO by replacing U.S. Assets and capabilities with European alternatives. What we have is a significant undertaking, given existing European capability gaps and reliance on the United States. However, as demonstrated by the Trump administration, maintaining the status quo is unsustainable. By denying the strategic shifts underway in the United States, Rutte’s approach risks leaving Europe unprepared for potential U.S. Retrenchment and providing justification for those European nations hesitant to make difficult decisions. Rutte has bought Europe time. he should now encourage them to use it effectively.