Politics
PRES. D.TRUMP, E.MACRON & THE GEOPOLITICS OF A FADING MULTILATERALISM AT G7 2026
EVIAN LES BAINS, 15-17 JUNE26

G7 EVIAN Banner (Source: G7 France 2026)
USPA NEWS -
As we are watching POTUS Donald Trump’s arrival at the G7, today, 15th June 2026, in Evian with a sense of déjà?vu and dissonance. The Elysee (French Presidency) had meticulously briefed the press: the American president would enjoy a special protocol, being the only leader personally welcomed on the red carpet by Emmanuel Macron. “The Beast”, Trump’s armoured limousine, did appear in front of the Royal Hotel. Yet when the door opened, President Macron was not there. Instead, an almost anonymous chief of protocol stepped forward to shake his hand. For a summit presented as the diplomatic apex of Emmanuel Macron’s second (and last) term, and for a guest portrayed as essential to the Iran and Ukraine files, the image was striking: the man who claims to have reopened the Strait of Hormuz arrived to a half?empty stage.
RED CARPET, COLD ALLIANCE: PRESIDENTS D.TRUMP, E.MACRON AND A TIRED G7 WHEN A “HISTORIC” IRAN DEAL MEETS THE SLOW DEATH OF MULTILATERALISM
The official explanation was prosaic, President Emmanuel Macron was finishing a meeting with Brazil’s president Lula. Politically, the scene felt like something else: a tiny crack in the choreography, a reminder that personal diplomacy has limits when strategic interests diverge. Later, the two men did appear together on camera. French President Macron thanked President Trump for coming and praised what he called an “essential agreement” with Iran. Donald Trump, in turn, described Emmanuel as his “special friend” but showed little enthusiasm for a Franco?British mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that the United States “does not need much help” and that the waterway would be “completely open by Friday” (19th June, date of Peace Agreement signature to be announced in Switzerland).
The official explanation was prosaic, President Emmanuel Macron was finishing a meeting with Brazil’s president Lula. Politically, the scene felt like something else: a tiny crack in the choreography, a reminder that personal diplomacy has limits when strategic interests diverge. Later, the two men did appear together on camera. French President Macron thanked President Trump for coming and praised what he called an “essential agreement” with Iran. Donald Trump, in turn, described Emmanuel as his “special friend” but showed little enthusiasm for a Franco?British mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that the United States “does not need much help” and that the waterway would be “completely open by Friday” (19th June, date of Peace Agreement signature to be announced in Switzerland).
U.S PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENS HORMUZ, CLOSES THE DOOR ON OLD?STYLE DIPLOMACY G7 EVIAN SHOWS HOW SUMMITS STRUGGLE TO MATCH A NEW GEOPOLITICAL MAP
Behind this cold politeness lay a series of paradoxes. On Iran, US. President Donald Trump arrived as the self?proclaimed architect of a peace arrangement that would reset relations between Washington, Tehran and reopen global trade routes via Strait of Hormutz. Yet even during the announcement, Lebanon was still under Israeli strikes, a reminder that collateral damage can continue long after a diplomatic communiqué. On Ukraine, US President Trump boasted about conversations with Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin and expressed confidence that he could “do something”, while French President Macron hoped to extract a concrete American commitment in a special session with Ukrainian Zelensky the next day during the G7 Summit. On trade, the American president Trump threatened once again to impose up to 100% tariffs on French wines and spirits if Paris maintained its 3% digital tax on Big Tech, repeating a pattern seen since 2019: tariffs used as a lever against European attempts to regulate US platforms.
Behind this cold politeness lay a series of paradoxes. On Iran, US. President Donald Trump arrived as the self?proclaimed architect of a peace arrangement that would reset relations between Washington, Tehran and reopen global trade routes via Strait of Hormutz. Yet even during the announcement, Lebanon was still under Israeli strikes, a reminder that collateral damage can continue long after a diplomatic communiqué. On Ukraine, US President Trump boasted about conversations with Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin and expressed confidence that he could “do something”, while French President Macron hoped to extract a concrete American commitment in a special session with Ukrainian Zelensky the next day during the G7 Summit. On trade, the American president Trump threatened once again to impose up to 100% tariffs on French wines and spirits if Paris maintained its 3% digital tax on Big Tech, repeating a pattern seen since 2019: tariffs used as a lever against European attempts to regulate US platforms.
A STRONG HANDSHAKE, A MISSED PROTOCOL AND THE END OF AN ERA WHY THE G7 SUMMIT LOOKS LIKE THEATRE WHILE POWER SHIFTS TO BRICS AND THE MIDDLE EAST
In parallel, domestic political theatre followed Trump to Evian. Only days earlier, he had staged a spectacular MMA?style fight near the White House to celebrate his 80th birthday, signaling to his base that he remains combative and unconcerned by protocol. In Evian, that same attitude translated into body language: a firm, dominant handshake, a fixed smile that seemed more like a mask than genuine enthusiasm, and a visible impression that his priorities lay elsewhere. While Macron tried to project continuity closing his second quinquennial with a major summit, seeking progress on Iran, Ukraine and digital taxation, Trump appeared to treat the G7 as one stop among many, useful mainly as a platform to announce his own Iran timetable and tariff threats.
In parallel, domestic political theatre followed Trump to Evian. Only days earlier, he had staged a spectacular MMA?style fight near the White House to celebrate his 80th birthday, signaling to his base that he remains combative and unconcerned by protocol. In Evian, that same attitude translated into body language: a firm, dominant handshake, a fixed smile that seemed more like a mask than genuine enthusiasm, and a visible impression that his priorities lay elsewhere. While Macron tried to project continuity closing his second quinquennial with a major summit, seeking progress on Iran, Ukraine and digital taxation, Trump appeared to treat the G7 as one stop among many, useful mainly as a platform to announce his own Iran timetable and tariff threats.
This G7 Summit also had an unusual guest list, with Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah Al?Sissi, as well as representatives from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Brazil, invited to discuss the evolving situation in Iran and the broader Middle East. On paper, this looked like an effort to broaden the conversation beyond the traditional Western circle. In practice, it highlighted the fragility of the old multilateral architecture: the countries most directly affected by the Iran conflict, and some of the biggest players in today’s energy and security landscape, are not members of the G7 but guests at the margins.
RED CARPET, COLD ALLIANCE: PRESIDENTS TRUMP, MACRON AND A TIRED G7 SUMMIT WHEN A “HISTORIC” IRAN DEAL MEETS THE SLOW DEATH OF MULTILATERALISM
Against this backdrop, the idea of multilateralism itself feels fragile. The G7 was born in 1975 as a club designed to coordinate the major industrial democracies; in 2026, it no longer represents the bulk of global output, nor the diversity of political regimes that shape the world. BRICS+ countries account for around 31.5% of world GDP and 40% in purchasing power parity, compared with less than 30% for the G7. Their economies grow faster, their demographics are younger, and their political leverage is increasing, especially in energy and raw materials. Many of these states look at Evian with a mix of curiosity and scepticism, aware that key decisions about Iran, Ukraine or tariffs may be taken elsewhere in Beijing, Riyadh, Delhi or Moscow or in informal formats rather than formal summits.
Against this backdrop, the idea of multilateralism itself feels fragile. The G7 was born in 1975 as a club designed to coordinate the major industrial democracies; in 2026, it no longer represents the bulk of global output, nor the diversity of political regimes that shape the world. BRICS+ countries account for around 31.5% of world GDP and 40% in purchasing power parity, compared with less than 30% for the G7. Their economies grow faster, their demographics are younger, and their political leverage is increasing, especially in energy and raw materials. Many of these states look at Evian with a mix of curiosity and scepticism, aware that key decisions about Iran, Ukraine or tariffs may be taken elsewhere in Beijing, Riyadh, Delhi or Moscow or in informal formats rather than formal summits.
In this sense, the protocol misstep at Trump’s arrival is more than a footnote. It symbolises a deeper discomfort: the G7 remains heavy on symbols, statements and red carpets, but light on the capacity to impose outcomes on a world that has moved beyond its orbit. The Iran peace announcement, the threats of wine tariffs, the disagreements on digital taxation and the cautious conversations on Ukraine all illustrate the same reality: multilateralism as we knew it is being contested from outside by rising powers, and from inside by leaders who see international institutions as stages rather than forums for compromise. Whether the G7 Summit can adapt or whether it will become a relic of a by gone era is an open question. What Evian 2026 made clear is that protocol, however carefully crafted, cannot hide a simple truth: when the balance of economic and political power shifts, the choreography of diplomacy must change too or risk looking like theatre in search of a plot.
ALIGNMENT WITH DISABILITY/INCLUSION VALUES
USPA is a press agency committed to diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity in newsrooms and in the field. The agency actively supports journalists and contributors with disabilities and considers their perspectives essential to a fair and accurate understanding of the world. In line with the values of the United Nations and the broader American tradition of civil rights and equal access, USPA strives to ensure that its reporting reflects the voices, experiences and dignity of all communities, including people living with visible or invisible disabilities. Assignments, editorial choices and partnerships are designed to respect human rights, promote non?discrimination and encourage the full participation of every reporter, regardless of gender, origin, belief or physical condition.
USPA’s commitment to inclusive journalism is not only a legal or ethical requirement; it is a professional standard. We believe that news produced by diverse and accessible teams is more accurate, more nuanced and more faithful to the complexity of the societies we cover.
USPA is a press agency committed to diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity in newsrooms and in the field. The agency actively supports journalists and contributors with disabilities and considers their perspectives essential to a fair and accurate understanding of the world. In line with the values of the United Nations and the broader American tradition of civil rights and equal access, USPA strives to ensure that its reporting reflects the voices, experiences and dignity of all communities, including people living with visible or invisible disabilities. Assignments, editorial choices and partnerships are designed to respect human rights, promote non?discrimination and encourage the full participation of every reporter, regardless of gender, origin, belief or physical condition.
USPA’s commitment to inclusive journalism is not only a legal or ethical requirement; it is a professional standard. We believe that news produced by diverse and accessible teams is more accurate, more nuanced and more faithful to the complexity of the societies we cover.
Liability for this article lies with the author, who also holds the copyright. Editorial content from USPA may be quoted on other websites as long as the quote comprises no more than 5% of the entire text, is marked as such and the source is named (via hyperlink).




