Nearly seven months into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, world leaders continue to recalibrate their diplomatic strategies, many relying on exaggerated praise and ego-driven messaging to remain in his favor. At the recent N.A.T.O. summit in The Hague, Secretary‑General Mark Rutte publicly referred to Trump as “Daddy,” while other allied leaders crafted talking points and social media reels that exalt the president’s “strength” and “vision.” However, according to Al Jazeera, this tactic “does little to change actual U.S. policy…those who do have good relations with Trump don’t necessarily come away with the things they want.”

In courting the U.S. President, N.A.T.O.’s Rutte is hardly alone. Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hailed the U.S. leader as a “transformational president” who had sided with “the American worker,” to which Trump responded with approval. Yet the flattery appeared to fall flat as, within days, Trump abruptly cut off trade negotiations with Canada and floated the possibility of new tariffs on Canadian exports. Meanwhile, both U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni have framed Ukraine as central to Trump’s foreign policy legacy, appealing to his ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize. During her April visit, Meloni flattered Trump directly, backing his peace efforts, pledging $10 billion in U.S. investment, vowing to fight fentanyl and illegal immigration, and even adapting Trump’s M.A.G.A. slogan to “Make the West Great Again.” These instances are far from isolated; foreign leaders continue to lean on flattery as a diplomatic tool to appease Trump, even as it remains unclear whether such praise yields lasting policy gains.

The rush to massage the President’s ego carries costs. When diplomacy turns performative, core issues like Ukraine’s security, digital‑tax fairness, and climate cooperation risk becoming props in a spectacle, eroding negotiation and effective conflict resolution. Furthermore, policy is reduced to theater, where gestures matter more than substance, and long-term strategy is sacrificed for immediate approval. This dynamic not only weakens institutions but also emboldens leaders to prioritize personal rapport over collective responsibility, leaving global crises unaddressed as a result of diplomatic pageantry.

Moreover, ego-focused statesmanship is not new. Similar flattery during Trump’s first term produced photo-ops but very few policy wins. Today’s reprise follows the same script — lavish praise for uncertain returns, evident in Canada’s abandoned tax, the still-unratified U.K. trade pact, and stalled Ukraine aid shows that more than ever, flattery can only go so far. According to Al Jazeera, “respectful firmness, on the other hand, does seem to work.” A clear example came when Carney firmly rejected Trump’s suggestion of making Canada the 51st U.S. state. Shortly afterward, Trump dropped the idea entirely.

Whether this style of “diplomacy by compliment” can deliver durable peace or economic stability remains doubtful. Governments that hinge strategy on personality rather than policy may earn a headline but forfeit leverage when the hard choices remain. As crises from global aggression to trade fragmentation demand more coordinated action, leaders must decide whether to keep feeding the “Hey Daddy” narrative or reassert principled, transparent engagement. Their choice will shape not only mutual interests but the credibility of the broader international order in the years ahead.