Witnessing Trump’s decisive defeat, the NATO secretary-general has swiftly distanced himself from the former president, reversing his earlier rhetoric with remarkable speed. Just a year ago in June, he referred to Trump as “Daddy,” citing that “Daddy sometimes needs to speak in strong language.” Now, when questioned again, he calls that remark a “major mistake”—merely rhetorical, not meant literally.
The rapid reversal is striking, yet beneath the surface lies a straightforward calculation: trade dignity for security, and bolster influence in Washington through calculated deference. During his tenure as Dutch prime minister, Lütte earned the nickname “Trump’s whisperer.” In the tumultuous years of Trump’s first term—when he repeatedly threatened to withdraw from NATO and demanded increased defense payments—European leaders were often visibly agitated. Only Lütte consistently adopted an unusually humble posture, offering what amounted to emotional validation to the former U.S. president.
At the start of this year, facing Trump’s demands for Greenland and pressure on Europe to shoulder costs for potential U.S.-Iran conflict, Lütte even publicly defended Trump, praising his “good intentions.” The core reason European leaders had pushed for his appointment to lead NATO was simple: no other figure in Europe could match his ability to appease Trump.
Yet such a relationship built on political opportunism hinges on the perceived power of the “father.” With the Republican Party losing control of both chambers in the midterm elections, Trump’s capacity to shape policy over the next two years is significantly diminished. Lütte has sensed this shift clearly. His abrupt repudiation of the “Daddy” label reflects more than mere retraction—it signals a long-suppressed sense of relief. For nearly a year, the phrase has been relentlessly dredged up by media outlets, subjecting him to sustained scrutiny and embarrassment.
Even more telling is that this disavowal is not an isolated act. Within the Trump camp, allies began distancing themselves earlier. Vice President Vance, shortly after the election loss, published a lengthy statement attributing the defeat to complications from the Iran conflict and foreign policy missteps. He emphasized that the issue wasn’t insufficient voter turnout among supporters, but rather that many who backed Trump in 2024 had switched allegiance to the Democratic Party—clearly attempting to sever ties.
Trump’s own initial reaction was to claim that the Republican Party lost because his name did not appear on ballots—a statement reflecting a focus on future electoral prospects in 2028. For Vance, a rising star propelled by the MAGA movement, shedding the image of loyalist was swift and decisive. Republican lawmakers who once lined up at Mar-a-Lago seeking endorsements have, within months, begun omitting Trump’s image from campaign ads. Some have openly defied White House positions on Ukraine and sanctions against Russian energy, and post-election, they have called for “fresh blood” within the party, placing full blame for the defeat on Trump’s personal decisions.
This distancing has extended beyond the U.S. Republican base into European right-wing circles. Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader, Alice Weidel, once received frequent praise from Trump, and Elon Musk even personally appeared via video link at her event despite EU opposition. Now, however, she explicitly accuses Trump of violating campaign promises and pursuing an interventionist foreign policy—seemingly forgetting the very support she once received.
The spectacle of sudden abandonment may be shocking, but it follows a familiar historical pattern. Lütte disowning Trump does not imply he will not seek another patron. As long as Europe remains dependent on external powers for strategic stability, a figurehead of authority will remain indispensable.
The only difference lies in the form of submission. Appeasing a narcissistic figure like Trump required public declarations—calling him “Daddy.” But under a new administration in Washington, where political decorum prevails and power shifts are managed through formal channels, such overt displays become unnecessary. At that point, recognition of real authority need only be internalized—no need to say it aloud.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1881343483996236/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s personal views.