← Brussels Playbook Podcast
Brussels Playbook Podcast
Diplomats or disruptors — when Trump’s ambassadors get ‘rude’
00:28:51
Ambassadors are supposed to smooth tensions, not spark them.
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:01]
A
Today's episode is presented by Nesta, the world's leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel, which enable customers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Learn more@neste.com Change there's an old joke in Poland.
- [00:18]
B
How do you recognize a diplomat when they're on the stairs? You can't tell if they're going up or down. Diplomacy, in other words, is supposed to be subtle, calibrated, pointed, but with plenty of plausible deniability. But lately, there's been nothing subtle about some of America's ambassadors in Europe. From Belgium to Warsaw to Paris, Trump's envoys have accused allies of anti Semitism, cut ties with parliamentary leaders and refused to show up when summoned by foreign ministers, all very publicly. What's striking isn't just the disputes themselves. It's the tone, the speed and the sense that the real audience might not be in European capitals at all. For decades, American diplomacy in Europe followed a fairly predictable defend US interests, yes, but protect the alliance, preserve access and keep disagreements with primarily behind closed doors. So is this simply a louder version of traditional diplomacy, Trump style politics exported overseas? Or are we watching a different playbook altogether, a deliberate shift in how Washington sees Europe relative to its own interests and values? I'm Sarah Wheaton, host of EU Confidential. To help us work out whether this is up or down for transatlantic diplomacy, I'm joined by POLITICO's senior correspondent Matheson, who's been reporting on America's ambassadors across Europe, and by Ivo Daalder. He's the former US Ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama, and as you'll hear, he's passionately distressed about the state of American foreign affairs. All right, so, Ivo, take us back to when you were U.S. ambassador to NATO. Now it's a bit different because that's an institution. It's one where the US really has a lot of weight to throw around. But just broadly, for ambassadors, are there unwritten rules for how to navigate disagreements? And likewise, things that you're kind of never supposed to do?
- [02:30]
C
Are there unwritten rules? Well, they're unwritten in the sense that the way you behave vis a vis other countries is in a civilized manner. You know, diplomacy has this idea that, in fact, even when you disagree strongly, you do it in a way that is not disagreeable. And so when there are really big differences between countries to the point that you break diplomatic relations, that's a really big disagreement. But otherwise, the normal written way, in fact, in which you express disagreement with the government is through something called the demarche you take a piece of paper that you either leave or read from to express your displeasure. You don't do that publicly. You do it privately to the government. So if you have disagreements, the way you do it is you express them directly to the government. You don't use the media as a means to do that. Now you use media in order to advance the interests and policies of your country. And you do that in hopefully in a diplomatic way. But that can be forceful, can be direct, can be real. It can show that there are differences. But when diplomats disagree, they're not going to try to do it in a disagreeable way.
- [03:41]
B
And so when you look at what's happening now in Brussels, Warsaw, in Paris, what's the big kind of departure change that you're seeing there?
- [03:49]
C
Well, it's a departure that actually starts at the top. I mean, the way that President Trump talks about his opponents, people he doesn't like other countries, is hardly the kind of way in which you want to talk about other people, about your opponents or about other countries. So what you're seeing in Poland and Belgium and frankly throughout the diplomatic service of those people who are politically appointed is they're reflecting the president. And when they disagree, they do so in a way that is extraordinarily strong, strong headed in the way that the president disagrees. So, you know, as it's as they say, that a fish rots from the top, from the head. And all we're seeing is a reflection of what comes out of Washington as opposed to what is particular to the individuals which are making these kinds of statements.
- [04:37]
B
And so Carl, let's go through each of these cases. And unusually here, when I've been saying Brussels, I really mean, you know, Belgium as a, as an individual country. So who's Bill White and what did he do to rile up the Belgians?
- [04:53]
D
So Bill White's a longtime friend of Donald Trump and a US Businessman who took up his post in November. And what hasn't he done to rile up the Belgians? I mean, there's been multiple occasions where he's, I guess, stepped out of a normal diplomatic tone. But most recently there's been this case of an ongoing judicial investigation of three Mohalin in Antwerp who were performing ritual circumcision. And prosecutors have been pursuing that case. And he essentially attacked it on X, calling it anti Semitic and picking a fight with the health minister, Frank Vanden Brook, which has caused a diplomatic Ferrari and multiple back and forth between them. There was also a fight he had with the socialist leader Conor Russo, who had compared Donald Trump and the ICE immigration enforcement officials with Hitler and White, demanded a retraction and threatened diplomatic sanctions and including a ban on entry to the US and so that's also been a big back and forth between those two. All playing out on social media, all very ugly. None of this, as Ivo said, is happening, you know, behind the scenes of being sorted out in back rooms. It's all right there for everyone to see.
- [06:22]
B
Looking at one aspect of that argument, you know, Bill White said that he was calling out what he saw as anti Semitism. People can have debates about what was going on with the actual situation, but I guess broadly, I'm an American, a dual American Belgian citizen. I'm not so sorry to see US Government officials fighting against anti Semitism in general. Ivo. I mean, this. This is maybe part of their job, right? Is this really so unusual?
- [06:48]
C
So the goal of an ambassador is to represent their country and to represent the policies of that country back in the host country where they are. So if there is a strong view in the United States that we need to fight antisemitism, which there is, although I would argue at times it's been weaponized, then having an ambassador express himself or herself strongly on that issue is not unusual, nor is it unacceptable. In some ways, it's when it gets into the internal politics, the internal deliberations, the internal judicial areas, that it starts to cross a certain line. So there's a real difference between expressing the view of the government that you represent, even doing so forcefully and openly and publicly, and trying to interfere into the internal politics of another country.
- [07:39]
B
Yeah, that was really what the complaint was, is that he was seen as weighing in on a judicial case happening in Belgium. Carl, let's move on to one of the other examples we're looking at here. Poland is one of Washington's closest security partners, and yet there was another massive spat. It involves the speaker of the Polish lower house, Vladimir Czechesta, and that's the second most important constitutional office in Poland. So Czechest said he wouldn't support Donald Trump's Nobel Peace Prize nomination, and that triggered a fiery response from Ambassador Tom Rose.
- [08:11]
D
Yeah, exactly. So he said, and this is, you know, the most sort of Donald Trump diplomatic spat ever, isn't it? Rose came out and basically said that he was going to have nothing to do with this really important politician in Poland in this key ally, and called his comments outrageous and unprovoked insults. Look, it sort of comes off as pretty surface in many ways and. And kind of superficial, but the Fact is that these relationships are very important to the US And I know former officials like Eva might be looking at this and thinking, well, this isn't how we would have done it in the.
- [08:53]
B
Yeah. I mean, the other issue with that case is you have a lot of political tension in Poland where, you know, you have Donald Tusk with a more kind of pro European agenda as the prime minister, whereas the president is threatening to block that as part of the right wing or aligned with the right wing Law and Justice Party. And indeed, the right wing opposition was able to use this spat. All right, so that's Warsaw. Last one, Carl. France took the most concrete diplomatic step. What happened with Charles Kushner in Paris?
- [09:23]
D
So Charles Kushner, who is the father in law of Trump's daughter, of course, is the ambassador to Paris. And he has taken steps that have had him summoned to the French Foreign Ministry twice since he arrived in Paris, once for complaining about the anti Semitism in France that he sees in an article in the Wall Street Journal. And then secondly, he intervened in the aftermath of the killing of a far right activist, raising concerns about it. And, you know, saying that really, in many ways, intervening in what's both a live police case, but also an incredibly hot political issue. And, you know, Kushner has also been criticized for taking meetings with the French far right. The State Department had pointed out that he's met with actually most parties in the political spectrum. But this idea that altogether the US Might be trying to put its thumb on the scales of politics in France in a moment where we're leading up to a presidential election where the far right is predicted to make a very strong showing.
- [10:38]
B
Yeah. And so the French Foreign Minister, Jean Noel Barrot, summoned Kushner. He didn't bother to show up. He cited personal commitments. They did eventually sort it out, but it was the second time that he dodged one of these formal summons. And as a result, France restricted his direct access to cabinet ministers. Ivo, how significant is that?
- [11:00]
C
You know, it's very significant. It basically interferes in the normal way in which diplomacy is supposed to work. Yes, you are representatives of the President of the United States, indeed of the United States in France, but you're also a guest in your host country. And one of the sort of ways in which disagreements tend to get expressed is, as we mentioned earlier, if the government that is represented by the ambassador has a problem, they do a demarge. If the government at home has a problem with the ambassador or deep policy of the country that he represents, they call him in for A meeting with the Foreign Minister or at the Foreign Ministry. I mean, this happens all the time. It happens less often between allies, to be frankly. But, you know, the Danish have called in the ambassador over the issue of Greenland. And here he was called in, and you're supposed to show up. You don't have personal time in the sense that you are the diplomatic representative of the President of the United States. And when your host government says you need to come at this time to the Foreign Ministry in order to receive sort of a counter demarche, a warning or whatever it is, you show up. And if you don't show up, that is a serious diplomatic breach. Now, barring the ambassador from speaking to cabinet members is also a serious diplomatic breach. And so the escalation here, I think, is serving political ends on both sides. And that's, I think, the larger point here. We are no longer in the world of diplomacy. We are in the world of scoring cheap political points. And that is something that may occur when you're dealing with your adversaries. And in the diplomatic sphere, it's completely novel to have this occur when you are talking to allies. And after all, France is not just an ally, it's the oldest ally that the United States had. The United States would not be the United States without French support for its effort in the revolution. 250 years, as we are celebrating right now at this point. So it's a pretty big deal. But it really does serve both sides. I think Karl's right. The French are. Are not unhappy that they're having this spat.
- [13:12]
D
To add to that, I think it's really interesting to contrast the situation in France with that in the uk where, you know, Warren Stevens, the ambassador there, hasn't made quite such telling or provocative interventions into UK politics. But he has been critical of UK government policy. And the UK in its strategic positioning around this, has essentially taken a very neutral approach to it, very diplomatic. And that kind of speaks to, I think, historical Dharma's overall positioning towards the White House. So there was maybe a potential for them to jump into that conflict with both feet, and they have chosen not to.
- [13:51]
B
Yeah, really interesting. The other thing that stood out, you know, is Evo was saying, look, ambassadors are supposed to be there to kind of project, and their audience is the host country. But, Carl, your piece suggests that, indeed, for some of these ambassadors, their target audience is not the host country.
- [14:11]
D
Yeah, exactly. It really does seem that, you know, as one former State Department official said to me, that they're performing to an audience of one. And, of course, that one is Donald Trump. For example, Bill White has told his embassy staff that his biggest priorities for 2026 are three things. Throwing the biggest July 4th party ever. Hosting a screening for the documentary about Melania Trump, which has really blown out the public diplomacy budget we're hearing in the embassy. And the third thing was really garnering press attention for White himself. So all a package that appears to be sort of directed externally and not really meeting any of Belgium's priorities in the relationship. Lots of little hints. You know, the way that they tag the president consistently on social media just shows that really a lot of what these ambassadors are trying to do is put themselves front and center in front of the President. I think it's true in all administrations to an extent that diplomats and ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. But maybe in this case, what we see is a group of ambassadors serving at the pleasure of a sui generous president who demands particular types of spectacle and conflict and also just has a different policy towards Europe. The US Relationship with Europe, as spelled out in the National Security Strategy in December, is changing. It's becoming more complex. And the US Is seeking to shift European politics, European culture, towards something more aligned to the kind of MAGA movement in America. And if they break a few eggs along the way and a few hearts, then they're not really worried about doing that. And so, you know, I think that's partly why what we see from these ambassadors, this isn't a bug. Like, this is the system. And, you know, it might be norm breaking in an older sense, but maybe this is actually the new normal.
- [16:19]
C
I think what we're seeing is diplomacy playing out the fundamental shift in American policy, because it is not just in Europe, but it's around other places in the world that the President of the United States has decided to interfere in domestic politics in a way that is quite unheard of, openly and directly. He did it in Argentina, he did it in Honduras. He has done it openly now in Hungary, in which the Secretary of State has gone to Hungary, embraced Viktor Orban, and said that Viktor Orban winning the election is in the vital national security interest of the United States, which is a remarkable statement when you think about it. So we shouldn't be surprised that ambassadors reflect on what I think is now a politically ideological offensive against not only the left, but the center, and indeed the center right in European politics in favor of a far right white Christian nationalist ideology that motivates this administration. And they're going to be pushing it everywhere. And so we are in a new era. And I think part of the question for European governments is to decide are they going to play by the old rules or are they going to play by the new rules? And in some ways, the French are saying, we're not going to play by old rules. Are we going to use the old rules in a way to make our case more strongly, in a way that has an impact, or at least tries to have an impact on American behavior?
- [17:44]
B
But at the same time, one of the examples that you just brought up, Ivo of Hungary, I want to look at some recent history there under Joe Biden. U.S. ambassador David Pressman was also very provocative, confrontational towards Viktor Orban. He, he criticized Orban's government and said that, you know, there was a kleptocratic ecosystem. He also was a very vocal advocate of LGBT rights. So my impression was that that people in the Brussels bubble, and I imagine official Washington under Biden, were cheering him on for fearlessly sticking up for the rule of law, for non discrimination. So, you know, this White House has a different perspective, but these ambassadors still are just now taking a similar approach to advocating for the values and priorities of the US Government.
- [18:31]
C
Yes and no. So what was happening under the Biden administration was pushing particular policy lines with regard to LGBTQ rights, with regard to press freedom, with regard to democracy, and those were policy disagreements. But of course, no one said that Viktor Orban should be prime minister or interfere in that election of Hungary. Although, you know, nobody would have been sad if that had been the case, in part because he was violating not just US policy, but what were in some ways European and indeed Hungarian values and policies. This is different because it's not a policy argument, it's a people argument. It's J.D. vance going to the Munich Security Conference and castigating the sitting government sitting right in front of him six days before an election to say that they should embrace the free speech of a neo Nazi movement, which by the way, was not being banned, was running in the election, had every right to try and win that election. That's different. It is the direct interference in the political system that's new, not the pursuit of policies that are strongly favored by the President. And those policies will change, no doubt from one administration to another. So in the 2000s, there were large pushes against Germany and France on the issue of Iraq because there was a major difference over that issue. And that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's different than to say we're going to go all out in order to support or defeat one particular set of political opponents in an election that's different.
- [20:04]
B
We need to take a quick break, but we'll be right back. Stay with us.
- [20:15]
A
A message from Neste. Despite the recent European political focus on geopolitical security, defense, as well as economic competitiveness and international trade, the need to continue to advance the energy transition hasn't gone away. Neste's renewable fuels are an immediately available alternative to fossil fuels. While they can also contribute to energy security in Europe, the world needs to keep moving. But with reduced emissions. Nest Day's sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel are available today. Let's fuel change. Learn more@nesta.com Change
- [20:56]
B
Carl, you spoke to some U.S. state Department officials. What are they telling you?
- [21:01]
D
Yeah. So me and some other Politico colleagues have been speaking to people that have worked in the State Department previously, but also some current State Department officials. And I think there's a there is a sense that, you know, if you really speak to these people candidly, that they find the way that diplomacy towards Europe is being conducted in 2026 to be aberrant, you know, a breach of norms. And one person called it childish, embarrassing, another one called it rud. There's just a sense that this is not how we do things. And they also raise the question of, like, how does this serve American interests to annoy some of your closest allies, to alienate them at the expense of, you know, playing to this audience in the White House, to Trump? You're really cornering yourself and making yourself less effective, I think, is the general sense. I think this is an interesting point because, you know, it's certainly not all State Department officials that have spoken to have made those points. There are others that see this as their jobs to prosecute American foreign policy. And this is today's American foreign policy. So I think it does definitely cut both ways. I think there is also another point that some have made, which is just around process, that foreign policy traditionally has gone through a calibration process where anything that's said, any policy position that's taken runs through the National Security Council. Loads of departments in the American government, government intelligence services, foreign services, all have their say. And then everyone sings from the same hymn sheet. And there's a sense that that is getting radically circumvented now by more lone wolf actors in these ambassadors who are playing straight to the White House.
- [22:52]
B
So this failure to kind of follow the right process, you know, to do the demarche and that sort of thing, I mean, is that because Trump's ambassadors are not seasoned Diplomats, you know, Tom Rose is former advisor to Mike Pence, obviously. Charles Kushner, first father in law. Bill White is a fundraiser. Is that the issue?
- [23:13]
C
No, not really. Because of course, the United States has long hat political ambassadors and, you know, can't be against them. I'm one of them. I was appointed by President Obama not because I was a foreign service officer, but because I was a supporter of his campaign. The US has long had politically appointed ambassadors, many of whom have not had the background necessary for the jobs that they have filled.
- [23:34]
B
So, yeah, exactly. Obama, Biden, everybody sent fundraisers to nice
- [23:38]
C
European capitals that said you do go through training as an ambassador. You go literally to ambassador school, in which you learn everything that you need to know as an ambassador. And then of course, you run an embassy that is full with foreign service officers, including your number two, the Deputy Chief of mission, who you rely on to help guide you in the way in which you do business. But in this administration, as indeed in past administrations, many ambassadors come in and say they think they know it all. They don't really want to follow the rules in the way that the rules have been laid down. They ignore the advice, or in some cases get rid of their DCMs in order to do what they do. And some of those get into trouble. And that's true in every administration. So this is not just a political versus career issue, although in some ways it is. You wouldn't get career ambassadors saying the kinds of things that they did. They, they're not trained to do that. But nor is it this case that political ambassadors by definition behave in ways that are completely inappropriate. It's, it's about the individuals in every case.
- [24:42]
D
Can I just add to your point? Just as we've been speaking, actually, our colleague and data wizard Hannah Kokolara has been crunching the numbers on this. And all Joe Biden and Trump's first term app in Europe were political appointments. And that is the same under this administration as well.
- [25:00]
B
And indeed, you know, having a good relationship, proximity to the president, that can be an honor for a country to know that they have somebody that the President likes and takes seriously. So not necessarily a bad thing. Ivo, zooming out. You've argued recently that Pax Americana is over, but that, that doesn't necessarily mean the rules based order disappears. Instead, you know, you point to middle powers who might come in and defend the rules. Eu, Canada, Japan, Brazil. Does this kind of collapse of the diplomatic order fuel those new relationships?
- [25:31]
C
I think it does. I mean, I think what we're seeing in the diplomatic sphere and what we're talking about now is playing out in a much larger, I would argue, offensive against the rules based order. Marco Rubio has talked about the rules based order being weaponized against the United States, which is kind of strange because we created it, we maintained it, we ran it for 80 years, but that's their perspective. And so I think not having the kind of diplomatic norms that are part and parcel of the way nations deal with each other is part and parcel of this administration's foreign policy, which is not to support a rules based order, but to support American power, a great power, and to quote Thucydides, as we all do, a world in which powers, great powers do what they want and small powers do as they must. That's the world they want to live in. That's the world they're going to. That's the world in which the President of the United States is trying to use the power that he has as president, whether it's through tariffs or military power or diplomatic scolding or what have you. And countries that are frankly, in some ways less powerful, that is everybody, except for China, need to find other ways in which to counter that. And one way to do that is to. Is to build stronger rules to enhance the relationships among themselves in order to create a counterbalance and a counter power. And I think that's what's happening in Europe. I think that's what Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, called for in Davos in a rallying cry for saying that, you know, the rules based order as we've known it is no longer. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use rules as a way to deal with each other. And I think that's really what you will see. So I don't think Europe is going to steep to the kind of diplomatic engagement in Washington that has happened in their own capitals. I think they're just gonna be pushing to work together with other countries on the basis of existing and new rules that benefit them. And that's how the world works. That's how international politics works. Great powers and powers create the rules that serve them. And if they no longer serve them, they walk away. The Chinese have been doing that for a long time. Now the United States is doing it as well.
- [27:40]
B
All right, we'll leave it there. Ivo, Carl, thanks so much for joining me.
- [27:43]
C
Thank you.
- [27:43]
D
Thank you.
- [27:46]
B
Okay, that's it from us today, but we'd love to hear what you think. Maybe you've got your own story about an undiplomatic ambassador. Send us a message or a voice note. And yes, please keep it diplomatic on our WhatsApp number, which you'll find in the show notes. You can also reach us@podcastolitico EU. Thanks to Deanna Sturris, our senior audio producer, and to Zoe de Joy for production support. I'm Sarah Wheaton. See you next week.