The tenure of President Donald Trump has ushered in a unique era in international diplomacy, characterized by an unprecedented level of personalization.
In 2025, a striking number of world leaders, including those from Israel, Pakistan, and several African nations—specifically Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal—have publicly championed Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
This phenomenon highlights an extreme form of flattery that serves to appease Trump’s ego, yet raises questions about the long-term implications for international relations.
One notable assertion of this deference was made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who, in a private message to Trump ahead of a summit in the Netherlands, lauded him for driving critical developments that previous American presidents had failed to achieve.
Rutte went as far as referring to Trump’s approach to foreign relations as necessary, implying that sometimes “Daddy has to use strong language” to exert influence.
This strategy of effusive praise often allows leaders to mitigate potential conflicts with the Trump administration; however, it also risks creating a dependency on sycophancy.
By showering Trump with accolades, leaders may hope to secure favorable treatment or avert his wrath in dealings.
Reflecting on his actions, Rutte explained his approach to The New York Times by emphasizing his responsibility to maintain NATO unity above all else, stating that he was unconcerned about criticism for his tact.
The NATO summit last month has been portrayed as a notable success, with member states pledging to allocate 5% of GDP towards defense.
Additionally, the U.S. agreement to supply more Patriot missiles to Ukraine has been viewed as a significant development in the nation’s defense strategies against external threats, including from Iran.
While such results may seem beneficial, the strategy of obsequiousness comes with its own set of risks.
Leaders who act submissively may find themselves caught in a web of concessions and expectation, where Trump perceives their compliments as a sign of vulnerability.
This creates a dangerous hierarchical dynamic that could weaken a nation’s negotiating stance in future relations.
Obsequiousness can yield short-term gains in diplomatic interactions that resemble ‘one-shot games,’ where each encounter is viewed as a unique opportunity to leverage influence.
However, international diplomacy typically operates over a longer horizon, characterized by ‘repeated games’ in which past interactions significantly shape future negotiations.
In this context, foreign leaders must consider the long-term classroom lessons inherent in their diplomacy with Trump.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull articulated that a more steadfast approach may yield better respect in the long run.
He recounted his experience of standing firmly behind a refugee deal negotiated under the Obama administration, even though it initially sparked Trump’s ire.
Turnbull’s strategy highlighted how enduring criticism can ultimately cultivate respect and may prove invaluable in navigating future diplomatic crises.
By engaging with strength rather than pandering to Trump’s ego, leaders can preserve their national dignity while also laying a foundation for more effective negotiations in the future.
Conversely, the act of excessive flattery might yield immediate diplomatic favors but simultaneously builds a precedent of expectation that could make subsequent negotiations increasingly challenging.
Critics of this approach assert that it debases national integrity and compromises the self-respect of leaders who choose to engage in such diplomatic theater.
As foreign leaders contemplate their future interactions with President Trump, they must weigh the potential benefits of obsequiousness against the risks of being perceived as weak.
Ultimately, successful diplomacy is not merely about short-term validation or advantages—it also requires the establishment of mutual respect that endures beyond individual negotiations.
The long-term consequences of a focus on sycophancy could negatively affect their countries’ standings in the global arena and complicate future diplomatic efforts.
Thus, a careful recalibration of the balance between necessary praise and the preservation of national dignity stands as a critical consideration for leaders navigating the unpredictable waters of Trump-era diplomacy.
image source from：lowyinstitute
