Deutschlands Merz sitzt machtlos da, während Trump europäische Verbündete im Oval Office angreift

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has worked hard to curry favor with U.S. President Donald Trump.

But their Oval Office meeting on Tuesday begged two important questions: How far is Merz willing to go to stay on Trump’s good side — and at what political cost?

The conservative German chancellor sat deferentially and mostly silent as Trump threatened to “embargo” Spain for not spending more on defense and for condemning U.S. strikes on Iran. Nor did Merz respond when Trump attacked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on an array of issues — “this is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with” — and threatened to escalate his trade war with Europe.

Merz’s silence was part of an obvious strategy: Never contradict Trump in front of the cameras, and try in private talks to cajole the president into seeing things Germany’s way.

Yet the image of the EU’s most powerful national leader sitting obsequiously beside Trump as he berated fellow European leaders will likely have jarred many Germans and left a sour taste in capitals across Europe, underscoring the political dangers of placating the U.S. president.

It also shows the relative powerlessness of a German leader whose chief foreign policy goals —from deterring Russian aggression to bolstering Germany’s export-driven economy— depend largely on a frequently humiliating balancing act to manage relations with a thin-skinned, unpredictable Trump.

Merz appears to have succeeded at getting Trump to like him. The president called the chancellor a “friend” on Tuesday and praised him for doing “really a great job.” Trump also sounded thankful for the chancellor’s rhetorical support for U.S. strikes on Iran, saying Merz has been “helping us out” and “very nice” on the matter.

This was, in fact, Merz’s strategy going into the talks with Trump. Before his departure he said he supported Trump’s goals regarding Tehran even as he acknowledged a fear that the strikes could lead to an Iraq-style quagmire. “Now is not the time to lecture our partners and allies,” he concluded, stowing his concerns.
Once in the Oval Office, as Trump bragged of the damage U.S. airstrikes had inflicted on Iran — “just about everything has been knocked out” — Merz gave an approving chuckle and said Germany was on the “same page” on the need to eliminate the regime in Tehran.

By contrast, Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has drawn Trump’s ire for criticizing the Iran strikes as illegal and barring the U.S. from using Spanish bases to attack the country. He has also refused to abide by NATO’s new 5-percent-of-GDP spending target. 

For those reasons, Trump said: “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”

Merz said nothing in response, agreeing only that Spain needs to spend more on defense. “We are trying to convince them that this is a part of our common security, that we all have to comply with these numbers,” he said.

French President Emmanuel Macron, in stark contrast to Merz, later publicly aligned with Sánchez in questioning the legality of Trump’s war.

No Churchill

Merz also said nothing when Trump attacked the center-left Starmer over an ongoing dispute between Washington and London about the status of Diego Garcia — an island in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean that is home to a joint U.S.-U.K. military base. 

“The U.K. has been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island that they have, that they gave away,” Trump said. “They ruin relationships. It’s a shame.”

Merz needs close ties with both the British prime minister and Sánchez. Starmer is an important ally in the “E3” format that Germany, France and the U.K. use to coordinate European strategy toward Ukraine. Sánchez, meanwhile, represents the largest faction within the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, with whom Merz’s conservatives must reach compromises. 

Following his meeting with Trump on Tuesday, Merz said: “There is no way that Spain will be treated particularly badly” on trade as a member of the EU. He also said he had defended Starmer to Trump, telling the president the British leader “is making a really very, very large, very, very valuable contribution in the E3 format to ending the war in Ukraine, and that I consider this criticism of him to be unjustified.”

The key, Merz said, had been not to correct Trump in front of the cameras.

“I did this behind closed doors because, as I said, I did not want to play out the conflict on the open stage there.”

Perhaps the biggest question for Merz, however,  is whether the appeasement is working.

Merz’s goal, after all, had been to convince Trump to deescalate his tariff war on Europe and to get the U.S. leader to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin more aggressively with sanctions to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine.

Merz said after his meeting with Trump that he had shown the U.S. president a map of the front lines in Ukraine, and that he had come away with the impression “that the president is now more understanding what is at stake for this country” when it comes to the need to avoid territorial concessions. He also said he had told Trump that the EU-U.S. trade agreement agreed last summer is not up for debate.

“Here in Washington, they know that we on the European side have reached a limit in terms of what we are willing to accept,” Merz said. “I have gained the impression that the president and his staff see it that way too.”

Preserving that opportunity to persuade Trump on such issues is why Merz avoids open confrontation with the president. Of course, behind closed doors, Trump may also have told Merz what he wanted to hear.

In front of the cameras, however, Tuesday’s meeting provided no evidence that Merz was able win Trump around on the key issues. On the contrary, Trump threatened to intensify his trade wars and complained of having given away “massive amounts of ammunition” to Ukraine.

As a foreign policy tactic, Merz may have discovered, flattering Trump has its dangers and limits.

What else should’ve Metz done? Start a Jersey Shore spin-off?