Rutte stuck the landing — after some turbulence
With help from Phelim Kine, John Sakellariadis and Joe Gould
Subscribe here Email Eric
NATO Secretary-General MARK RUTTE ultimately succeeded in his main missions to mollify President DONALD TRUMP and raise the alliance's defense spending ambitions at this week's NATO summit in the Netherlands. The journey there just wasn't as seamless as he had hoped.
For all of NATO's meticulous pre-summit planning to minimize potential conflict between alliance members, plenty of flashy moments still happened.
First, Trump demurred when asked about the U.S. commitment to common defense, saying it depended 'on your definition.' Those comments put frontline NATO members in the Baltics and Scandinavia in particular in a tough spot. Then, Secretary of State MARCO RUBIO shocked alliance members by throwing cold water on the prospect of more sanctions against Moscow; the night before, he privately told foreign counterparts the Senate would take up a harsh bipartisan sanctions bill against Moscow after it passes Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill.
Meanwhile, Rutte raised some eyebrows when he referred to Trump as 'daddy' when speaking to reporters. (Your Gen-Z host cringed when he heard that.)
And that's not even getting into the main source of discord in The Hague this week — Spain's continued protest of the defense spending increase. When asked about Madrid's defense spending tantrum, Trump said, 'We're going to make them pay twice as much,' suggesting that Spain could get hit with tariffs if it doesn't change course.
But Rutte still managed to get the alliance to agree to Trump's desired five percent of GDP spending target, and the U.S. also agreed to language restating that the alliance's commitment to common defense is 'ironclad.'
The Heritage Foundation's NILE GARDINER argued to NatSec Daily that the summit was a win for U.S. strategic interests and also showed Rutte's prowess in working with the president.
'It's a triumph for President Trump. But it's a very good summit as well for' Rutte, Gardiner said. 'He is, alongside Italian Prime Minister GIORGIA MELONI, right now the influential European figure in partnering with Trump.'
Of course, not everyone was thrilled with what they saw this week in The Hague. In a lengthy X post, former Lithuanian Foreign Minister GABRIELIUS LANDSBERGIS ripped into Rutte and the summit outcomes, accusing the NATO chief of groveling before Trump and criticizing the president for making ambiguous statements on common defense. Landsbergis also wasn't impressed with the five percent commitment or the scant focus on Ukraine at this year's confab.
TORREY TAUSSIG, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former Europe and NATO policy official at the Defense Department and National Security Council, told NatSec Daily that this summit was 'a moderate success.' And she said that compared to the 2018 one in Brussels, where Trump blasted Germany as a 'captive of Russia' and physically shoved other NATO leaders, it went well. Yet Taussig argues that in pleasing Trump, the alliance did sidestep important conversations — not just about Ukraine, but also about the alliance's relationship with Indo-Pacific partners and the threats posed by China.
'In that way, this summit actually sets the alliance back on strengthening its deterrence and defense to address these issues,' said Taussig. 'It wasn't a disappointment. I just think there's a lot of hard work and a lot of open questions that allies are going to have to address in the months and years ahead.'
The Inbox
FIRST IN NATSEC DAILY — A MAJOR WORRY ABOUT MINORS: U.S. diplomats have grown alarmed by the possibility that the Trump administration's new social media visa vetting requirements could endanger minors, a State Department official tells Nahal.
The new standards direct consular officials to examine the social media accounts of people who apply for visas for all student and educational exchange programs. They also require that the foreigners applying for such visas make their social media accounts public, and there's no exceptions for age — so, for example, a 15-year-old applying for a visa to serve as a summer camp counselor in the U.S. would be required to make their account public.
In a virtual session today with STUART WILSON, a top official in State's consular affairs bureau, diplomats raised concerns that the requirement could expose minors to predators online. (Nahal saw screenshots of several diplomats' questions about this.) But Wilson said there would be no age-based exceptions and that a 'visa is not a right,' according to the State official, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
When asked for comment about the potential impact on minors, department spokespeople sent a statement that did not address that question but restated talking points about how the vetting process is intended to protect U.S. national security. Wilson did not respond to a request for comment.
DAMAGED ASSESSMENTS: Months? Years? Decades? The Trump administration and other parties are sending wildly mixed messages about exactly how far back U.S. airstrikes pushed Iran's nuclear program.
According to reports, a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment concluded that the strikes had set back Iran's program by only a few months. That undercut the Trump administration's claim that the strikes had 'obliterated' the program. The White House stridently dismissed the DIA assessment, even issuing a statement attacking CNN, which broke the story, with the subject line: 'CNN Spews Fake News Based on Leaked Low-Confidence Intel.'
While at the NATO summit today, Trump said the Iran program was set back 'basically decades' and compared the situation to the end of World War II (an odd parallel given that the U.S. used nuclear weapons then, not tried to prevent their existence). Rubio, speaking to our own Dasha Burns, used more measured language, saying the damage was 'substantial' and that Iran is 'much further away' from obtaining a nuclear weapon than before the strikes. Israeli officials, meanwhile, weighed in and said Iran's program was set back 'years.'
The bottom line: No one really knows — probably not even the Iranians, who are still digging out the rubble. Tehran has always maintained that its nuclear program was intended for peaceful purposes, although U.S. officials have long been worried that it has the components and knowledge it needs to quickly weaponize its program.
Trump also said today that the U.S. and Iran would hold talks 'next week.' He offered few details but suggested he didn't expect the talks to produce a new nuclear agreement.
IRAN'S OTHER TARGETS: Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) is urging the Justice Department to re-up security protections for former Trump aides on Tehran's hit list, amid worries that Iran could still seek retribution for U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear sites.
'There were some terminations of protective details of people that were targeted for assassination by the Iranians because of the role they played in the first term,' Graham told Attorney General PAM BONDI during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. 'I'd urge you to reconsider.'
Graham and Sen. TOM COTTON (R-Ark.) have both called on Trump to reverse his decision in January to pull back protection for former officials under active threat from Iran. But Graham's comments Wednesday mark the first time he's revisited the issue since the U.S. and Iran clashed directly.
In the exchange with Bondi, Graham argued the threat from Iran remained 'pretty high' despite a shaky ceasefire deal with Israel reached Monday. He called out the threat to Trump's former Secretary of State MIKE POMPEO, though at least four other senior Trump aides are also in Iran's crosshairs.
The U.S. intelligence community believes Iranian assassins are also after Trump's former national security adviser JOHN BOLTON, former Secretary of Defense MARK ESPER, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff MARK MILLEY and the former special envoy to Iran BRIAN HOOK.
IT'S WEDNESDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily! This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at ebazail@politico.com, and follow Eric on X @ebazaileimil.
While you're at it, follow the rest of POLITICO's global security team on X and Bluesky at: @dave_brown24, @HeidiVogt, @jessicameyers, @RosiePerper, @nahaltoosi.bsky.social, @PhelimKine, @ak_mack, @felschwartz, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @reporterjoe, @JackDetsch, @samuelskove, @magmill95, @johnnysaks130 and @delizanickel
Keystrokes
DANGER SIGNAL: Hackers suspected of having links to Russian military intelligence are reportedly using the Signal messaging app to deliver malware to Ukrainian government bodies.
Ukrainian cybersecurity officials have discovered that at least two new malware strains are being used in these attacks. One, called BeardShell, acts as a backdoor that can execute PowerShell scripts. The other, SlimAgent, involves capturing encrypted screenshots.
The use of Signal to deliver the malware is especially alarming because the encrypted app is so widely used.
The Complex
ANOTHER HEGSETH PURGE? Defense Secretary PETE HEGSETH says the Pentagon is trying to hunt down who leaked the classified Defense Intelligence Agency report on damage from U.S. airstrikes in Iran, our own Paul McLeary reports from The Hague.
'We're doing a leak investigation with the FBI right now because this information is for internal purposes, battle damage assessments,' Hegseth said while at the NATO Summit today. He alleged media accounts of the assessment were spun 'to make the president look bad when this was an overwhelming success.'
Hegseth gave no details about the leak probe, but he did say the conclusions of the DIA assessment were categorized as 'low confidence.' It's consistent with Hegseth's pledge to root out leakers and disloyal figures within the Defense Department, in particular those who divulge sensitive intelligence assessments that could undermine the administration's public messaging.
On a related note, Axios' Marc Caputo reports that the Trump administration is looking to limit the amount of classified information it shares with Congress following the leak. Officials suggested that it may have happened because the assessment was posted late Monday to CAPNET, a system the administration uses to share classified information with Congress. 'Go figure: Almost as soon as we put the information on CAPNET, it leaks,' an administration official told Axios. 'There's no reason to do this again.'
On the Hill
NAVY BUDGET UNDERWATER: There are bipartisan worries in the Senate that the Navy's budget is falling short, our own Joe Gould reports (for Pros!).
Lawmakers are especially worried about increasing operational demands, delayed submarines and a dwindling missile stockpile. Navy Secretary JOHN PHELAN and acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. JAMES KILBY drew questions about these topics Tuesday from Senate budget appropriators, suggesting there's support in both parties to increase the Navy's budget in the coming year.
Top Senate Defense appropriator Sen. MITCH McCONNELL (R-Ky.) joined Democrats and Appropriations Chair SUSAN COLLINS (R-Maine) in taking the officials to task.
'A fiscal '26 defense top line that doesn't keep pace with inflation, let alone with the pacing threat of [China], does not show that we're serious about the tasks that are before us,' McConnell said. 'Neither does pretending that one-time injections of funding are a substitute for consistent appropriation.'
Broadsides
DEMS GRILL LAKE OVER MEDIA CUTS: Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee took KARI LAKE, a senior Trump appointee, to task in a hearing today about cuts to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including at Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
Trump had asked Lake to implement his executive order in March that called for the agency to be 'eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' That has reduced USAGM's workforce by 85 percent and slashed its outlets' broadcasting services.
'We should not be dismantling the agency that combats propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party, the Kremlin and Tehran. Especially now, we need to be able to have facts that counter Iranian media spin that is essential to America's long-term interests,' said Rep. GREG STANTON (D-Ariz.).
Rep. JULIE JOHNSON (D-Texas) brought a diagram to the hearing juxtaposing Lake's comments characterizing Voice of America as 'propaganda' with similar diatribes from the Chinese government.
But Lake defended her moves, asserting, for instance, that VOA was 'rotten to the core' and a 'crime scene.' She accused USAGM of giving its personnel 'high-level security access based on falsified documents and incomplete background checks, phony names, phony social security numbers.' She also alluded to an ongoing police investigation of 'a series of threatening phone calls' allegedly targeting an unnamed sitting member of Congress that originated from VOA.
GOP committee members praised Lake's cuts. 'USAGM embraced and regurgitated enemy propaganda. It became a mouthpiece for our adversaries, paid for again by your tax dollars, and we're here to say that the grift is over,' committee Chair Rep. BRIAN MAST (R-Fla.) said.
Transitions
— NICHOLAS KASS, a former career intelligence official and Trump booster, will take over as acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, our own John Sakellariadis scoops.
— EDWARD 'BIG BALLS' CORISTINE, one of ELON MUSK's proteges in the Department of Government Efficiency who helped downsize or dismantle multiple agencies, has left the federal government, Wired reports.
What to Read
— Jennifer Kavanagh and Rosemary Kelanic, Foreign Affairs: The Real Obstacle to Peace With Iran
— Matteo Maillard, The Africa Report: Wagner's red room: How Russian mercenaries flaunt their crimes on Telegram
— Julian Zelizer, Foreign Policy: What Happened to the War Powers Act?
Tomorrow Today
— Center for Strategic and International Studies, 9 a.m.: The Future of NATO Defense, Resilience, and Allied Innovation
— House Foreign Affairs Committee, 10 a.m.: Assessing the Terror Threat Landscape in South and Central Asia and Examining Opportunities for Cooperation
— Henry L. Stimson Center, 10 a.m.: The Realities of an Invasion of Taiwan
— Arab Center, 12 p.m.: The U.S. Role in Israel's War on Iran: Regional and Global Implications
— Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 12:30 p.m.: Does the West Still Exist? Reflections on the NATO and G7 Summits
— Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2 p.m.: The U.S., Iran and Israel: Can Crisis be Turned Into Opportunity?
Thanks to our editors, Rosie Perper and Emily Lussier, whose battlefield assessments are always incomplete and confusing.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Cardinal Visits Gaza As Hunger Ravages Its People - Erin Burnett OutFront - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Cardinal Visits Gaza As Hunger Ravages Its People Erin Burnett OutFront 48 mins A source just tells CNN that Jeffrey Epstein's ex girlfriend was granted limited immunity in order to speak with Trump's deputy attorney general. Plus, the manmade humanitarian crisis in Gaza grows.


New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Federal judge tosses Trump administration's ‘sanctuary city' lawsuit against Illinois
A federal judge on Friday threw out a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to block sanctuary laws in Illinois that limit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In her ruling, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins said that the Tenth Amendment, which protects people from federal government overreach, shielded the decision of local law enforcement to avoid collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration agencies. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' Jenkins wrote of the suit, which named Illinois, Chicago and a series of local officials as defendants. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Illinois prevents local officials from providing immigration information 'not otherwise publicly available,' while Chicago bars them from responding to inquiries from ICE without a warrant. State officers are also barred from complying with immigration detainers. The Trump administration argued that the local laws were an 'intentional effort' to subvert federal immigration statutes and claimed that they facilitated the return of criminals to the public. Chicago was one of the first major fronts in the Trump administration's aggressive mass deportation campaign, with federal agents swarming the city in the weeks after the inauguration. The lawsuit was one of the first cases filed by the Trump administration against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.