Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump

In June 2025, Rutte voiced support for US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: in a private message published by Trump, Rutte praised and thanked the latter for his "decisive action" in Iran, calling it "truly extraordinary and something no one else dared to do."

In late June 2025, as NATO leaders gathered in The Hague, President Donald Trump publicly released a private message sent to him by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. In the highly publicized communication, Rutte praised Trump’s recent air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and credited him with securing NATO's landmark agreement to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. The tone and content of the message, shared on Trump’s Truth Social platform, sparked a vigorous debate about diplomatic norms, alliance cohesion, and the relationship between personal rapport and institutional diplomacy.

Message Content

The full message, shared by Trump during his flight to the summit, began with a warm greeting and effusive praise:

Mr President, dear Donald,

Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.

You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!

Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.

Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!”

— Mark Rutte

Rutte’s sign-off with references to NATO’s 5% defence spend commitment and “His Majesty’s dinner” underscored efforts to reinforce Trump’s sense of personal achievement and alignment with NATO’s headline agenda.

Verification and Diplomatic Reaction

NATO sources confirmed that Rutte had indeed sent the message, and Rutte himself later stated he had “absolutely no problem” with it being shared publicly, since it contained no confidential content. He described the tone as “appropriate” and intended to reflect his personal style rather than official NATO communiques.

Nevertheless, diplomatic analysts expressed concern that the public nature of the exchange blurred the line between private diplomacy and official alliance communications, potentially setting an unintended precedent for flattery-led influence.

Strategic Context

The text coincided with two significant developments. First, Trump ordered air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities—a move NATO had not formally endorsed—but Rutte framed it as “truly extraordinary,” positioning it as enhancing collective security. Second, Rutte tied this action to the successful negotiation of NATO's new 5% defense spending target—a key Trump-era objective. The message thus linked U.S. military initiative with NATO’s broader realignment toward burden-sharing.

Some analysts described it as “charm offensive” diplomacy; others warned it represented overly personal bargaining that risked undermining NATO norms of consensus-based diplomacy.

Broader Reactions

Domestic media and political commentators reacted strongly. American outlets such as AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian emphasized the unprecedented nature of a NATO Secretary-General publicly lavishing such praise on a U.S. President, highlighting the informal tone and direct appeals . European analysts, including from Aftenposten and Omni, framed the move as calculated reassurance to sustain U.S. engagement in NATO.

Some critics described it as a form of “flattery diplomacy,” worried that NATO might distort its posture to flatter political leaders .

Implications for NATO’s Future

Observers noted that this public exchange might reinforce Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy—rewarding actions that benefit U.S. objectives, such as defense spending, while potentially overshadowing long-term strategic unity. The incident raises questions about whether personal diplomacy can substitute for formal alliance consensus.

Yet advocates argue that the message was instrumental in uniting NATO around its headline goal and in securing Trump’s participation—an outcome that might not have been achievable through standard diplomacy alone (reuters.com).

Ongoing Debate

Since the summit, scholars and former officials have debated the norms of personal diplomacy. Some argue it shows flexibility and candidness; others believe NATO leaders should maintain institutional formality to protect credibility across administrations.

Critics suggest NATO should establish guidelines for private correspondence and reminders that messages sent via encrypted apps may eventually become public records, particularly when they involve Heads of State.

See also

• Agreement on 5% Defence Spending by 2035
• Spain–NATO 5% Military Spending Conflict