The sixth meeting in 2025 between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago was – at least publicly – a lovefest.
Despite the predictable pre-meeting chatter about major differences, White House frustration with Netanyahu, and tension in the relationship, none of that surfaced in the two separate public appearances between the two leaders – not over Gaza, not over Iran, and not over the West Bank, though Trump did say that the two didn’t agree 100% on that.
What a difference 16 years makes.
Netanyahu remembers 16 years ago, when Barack Obama was president and championed the “daylight” strategy in ties with Israel – or, as Netanyahu said during his press conference with Trump after the meeting, the belief that “America can advance its interests in the Middle East if it opens a lot of daylight between it and Israel.”
Trump, he said, has taken the exact opposite tack. “He’s achieved remarkable things in the Middle East because we’ve worked together. We talk about our ideas. Sometimes we have different ideas, but we work it out. And most of the time, we see eye to eye.”
If there is “daylight,” none of it is front and center, in full public view. Instead, as was apparent on Monday, what was on display was lavish praise for one another.
Netanyahu repeatedly said that Trump is the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House.
“It’s not even close,” he said. “I think Israel is very blessed to have President Trump leading the United States, and I’ll say, leading the world. I think it’s not merely Israel’s great fortune; I think it’s the world’s great fortune.”
And Trump, in his turn, returned the favor.
“He’s a wartime prime minister at the highest level,” Trump said. “If you had a different kind of personality, if you had a weak person or a stupid person, and there are plenty of both of them, you would not have had success, and you might not have Israel.”
What were they doing? Why the effusive praise? Who is the audience?
Trump-Netanyahu summit's impact on Israeli politics
On the surface, one might think the answer is obvious. Israeli elections must be held by October 2026, so Israel will soon be entering campaign mode. Trump’s praise – his ringing endorsement of Netanyahu – would seem meant for the Israeli voter.
But is it?
Does anyone really think that voters in Afula or Haifa intending to vote for Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party will now, because of Trump’s endorsement, change their minds and vote Likud?
Probably not. Historically, presidential endorsements – positive or negative – have little impact on Israeli elections.
When Bill Clinton intervened openly on behalf of Shimon Peres in 1996, it failed. When Obama hoped Isaac Herzog would defeat Netanyahu in 2015, it failed. When Trump himself took dramatic pro-Israel steps ahead of the 2019 and 2021 elections, it didn’t help Netanyahu form a government.
Judging by that track record, presidential endorsements simply do not move Israeli voters.
So if Trump’s praise was not meant to persuade Israelis at the ballot box, what purpose did it serve?
The answer begins with Netanyahu’s predicament.
His coalition is brittle, one defection away from collapse. Polling consistently shows it hovering in the low-50s in the 120-seat Knesset. His approval ratings are low, and much of the country would like to see him resign.
In that context, Trump’s praise serves a very specific domestic function. By calling Netanyahu “a wartime prime minister at the highest level” and suggesting Israel might not even have survived without him, he is not speaking to Israeli voters. He is speaking to Netanyahu’s coalition partners.
The message to Likud skeptics, to MKs uneasy with the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription bill, and to coalition powerbrokers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich is blunt: don’t bring down the government. The world’s most powerful leader backs this prime minister. He is not isolated. He is not expendable. Replacing him while Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are still in play would be reckless.
Trump’s side of the equation is no less precarious – but the payoff he seeks from Netanyahu’s effusive praise is different, and more personal. He gains affirmation from a leader still held in high esteem in vast swaths of the Republican Party.
Trump enters 2026 with approval ratings sliding, support among independents collapsing, and economic dissatisfaction dominating the public mood. Inflation and affordability – not foreign policy – are the American voters’ top concerns. On those issues, Trump is vulnerable.
So what does Trump gain when Netanyahu repeatedly calls him “the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” credits him with global leadership, and awards him the Israel Prize?
The answer lies in reinforcing Trump’s preferred self-image as a global troubleshooter and strong leader – and in shoring up key pillars of his coalition.
Netanyahu’s praise feeds directly into the leadership narrative Trump values most: that outcomes depend on strong leaders. When Trump suggests Israel might not exist under weaker leadership, he is asserting that it is the strength and instinct in leaders that is most decisive.
Netanyahu’s praise of the president – that Israel and even the world is blessed and fortunate that he sits now in the White House – reinforces that view of history.
Netanyahu’s praise also matters politically. With the economic situation hurting Trump’s standing, Netanyahu’s validation offers reinforcement in the arena where Trump believes he is strongest: foreign affairs and power politics.
It also buttresses key segments of Trump’s coalition. Trump’s Evangelical base remains one of the most reliable pillars of his support, and for that audience, Israel is not peripheral but central and often theological. It is one thing for Trump to declare himself Israel’s greatest friend; it is another for Israel’s prime minister to say it – conferring legitimacy on the claim.
Trump to receive 2026 Israel Prize
Awarding Trump the Israel Prize fits this logic. It embeds Trump’s Israel record into Israel’s national narrative. For Evangelical voters and donors, that symbolism carries weight.
The praise reassures pro-Israel donors and activists that, despite Trump’s America First rhetoric and the rise of an isolationist wing within MAGA, Trump remains aligned with Israel’s leadership – a reassurance that matters heading into a midterm cycle where money and turnout will be critical.
But the strategy is not cost-free. Netanyahu’s embrace risks antagonizing the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA, which views Israel as Washington’s puppet master, entangling the US in “forever wars.” Netanyahu’s effusive praise and Trump’s public embrace of Netanyahu risk reinforcing precisely those narratives.
Still, Trump appears willing to pay this price. For now, he is betting that affirmation from Israel’s prime minister – and the validation it brings with Evangelicals, mega-donors such as Miriam Adelson, and traditional foreign-policy conservatives – outweighs the alienation of some hardline America Firsters.
Ironically, neither leader’s core political problems are being solved by this mutual praise.
Netanyahu’s problem is not that Israelis doubt his relationship with Trump. It is that his coalition is fragile, that October 7 and its aftermath have sapped the public’s trust, and that he remains the country’s defining faultline.
And Trump’s problem is not that Evangelicals doubt his commitment to Israel. It is that economic anxiety is bleeding support among independents, and his movement is fracturing on foreign policy.
The mutual praise is not meaningless; it performs useful political work for both leaders. But it is unlikely to solve the deeper political challenges confronting each at home – challenges that flattery alone cannot solve.