Donald Trump came to Canada to play the hits.
Seven years ago, Trump arrived in Canada for the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec. At the time, the United States was locked in a tariff war with its allies. Trump exited the summit suddenly, refusing to sign the joint communiqué and jetting off to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Aboard Air Force One, Trump fired off a series of tweets, accusing host Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of being “dishonest” and “weak.”
Trump landed in Kananaskis, Alberta, on Sunday for this year’s summit, locked in an ever wider trade war with everyone else present. Trump, again, announced his sudden departure and left shortly after the working dinner on Monday night, off to resolve the war in Iran, he said. Aboard Air Force One, he took to Truth Social to chide “[p]ublicity seeking” French President Emmanuel Macron, who “always gets it wrong.”
Trump’s behavior at the annual meeting is a clear sign that the U.S. president is every bit as unpredictable and ornery as he has ever been, especially when it comes to sitting through multilateral events instead of getting to play dealmaker or issue threats.
And despite ample planning designed specifically to avoid having Trump wreck the agenda—removing mentions of climate change and opting for a series of issue-specific statements instead of one far-reaching communiqué—things turned out much the same this time as the last.
The one big difference is that this time Trump signed the joint statement—most of it, anyway.
“We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East,” the statement reads, “including a ceasefire in Gaza.”
Putting any weight on Trump’s signature may seem like cloying optimism attached to meaningless symbolism, particularly as the president ominously warned this week that “[e]veryone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” while moving U.S. Air Force assets within striking distance of Iran. But it also reveals an interesting new dynamic in the club of global leaders.
Throughout Monday, Trump’s staff repeatedly indicated that the president would, yet again, withhold his signature from the joint communiqué on the Middle East. It was Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney who convinced Trump to sign on to the statement over dinner, shortly before his sudden exit, a senior Canadian official told Foreign Policy.
Trump’s visit to Canada, however brief, made clear that the president is quite enamored with the recently elected Carney. It’s a far cry from Trudeau, on whom Trump soured spectacularly. Even in Kananaskis this week, Trump couldn’t help but slam Trudeau for booting Vladimir Putin’s Russia from the G-8. (Trump seemed unaware that Trudeau was not prime minister when that decision was made.)
In March, as Carney vied for the job ahead of the April federal election, Trump offered a virtual endorsement of the Canadian. Carney was swept to a once unlikely victory on the back of a wave of anti-American sentiment by Canadians irate at Trump’s threats against their sovereignty. At their first meeting, Trump lauded his friendly relationship with Carney, even as the prime minister levied a suite of retaliatory tariffs on the United States and swatted down his talk of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state. The bonhomie continued this week, with the pair vowing to start negotiations on ending the trade war within a month.
“I’m a tariff person,” Trump, all smiles, said before their bilateral meeting. “Mark has a more complex idea—but also very good.” The pair were scheduled to meet for just five minutes but wound up spending closer to a half-hour together. After the tête-à-tête, the two announced plans to start negotiations on resolution to their trade war within 30 days. Carney’s team, however, says there’s unlikely to be any deal if Trump keeps tariffs on Canadian exports.
The camaraderie between the two has earned Carney the oft-passed-around title of “Trump whisperer.”
Many have held the title before. Trudeau was bestowed the title before the Charlevoix fracas. Macron has been the only leader to try to manage the unpredictable leader over both his terms in office. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer certainly fancies himself the current holder. Trump’s favor is fickle with the liberal old white men who make up the liberal order—his affinity for strongmen such as Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is far more constant.
Still, Western leaders seem sure that staying on Trump’s good side is worth the effort. But Kananaskis has also revealed just how little Trump’s personal affection really means.
Starmer may have gotten a deal, which was finalized at the summit, but tariffs on British exports remain. Macron seemed intent on praising Trump when he spoke to reporters on the sidelines of the summit, insisting that further escalation in Iran would be a “strategic mistake” but that “if the United States can achieve a cease-fire, that’s a very good thing.”
As Macron explained on Tuesday, confirmed by a source familiar with the discussions, it was Trump who first invoked the idea of a cease-fire in a conversation with the other leaders. Indeed, the joint statement that Trump signed, albeit reluctantly, calls for a “de-escalation” in Iran—“the intention that was shared was a cease-fire,” Macron said. The French president insisted that any effort to use missiles to enact regime change would be a “strategic error.”
“Does anyone think that what we did in Iraq in 2003 was a good idea?” Macron asked, rhetorically. “Does anyone think what we did in Libya, the previous decade, was a good idea? No.”
But as he departed the summit, Trump took aim at Macron for the comments, insisting they were “wrong.”
“He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”
Trump proceeded to shred whatever lingering optimism may have come out of the summit. Aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked about signing the joint communiqué. “Well, I haven’t seen the statement yet,” he said. (“I authorized them to say certain things,” he added.)
Not content with sabotaging the statement, the president went on throw some cold water on his trade talks with Canada. “They’re going to have to pay a lot of tariffs,” Trump said. “They’re going to have to pay a lot of money for the dome,” referring to the planned “Golden Dome” air defense plan. He also said more tariffs, on pharmaceuticals, were still in the works.
As Trump stood next to Carney, 12 hours earlier, he mused about the very nature of the G-7 itself, lamenting that Russia was no longer a member and suggesting that China should be considered for membership.
After Trump’s departure, a series of other statements—co-signed by all the leaders—were released. They grappled with artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, and transnational repression, among other issues. Conspicuously missing, however, was a statement on Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Instead, that came via the Chair’s Summary, a vague statement that “expressed support for President Trump’s efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine” and that committed the G-7 only to “exploring all options to maximize pressure on Russia, including financial sanctions.”
At his closing press conference, Carney confessed that “there would be things that some of us, Canada included, would say above and beyond” what was included in that final statement. But there was a clear recognition that Trump would not sign a statement that went much further than fairly noncommittal language, a Canadian official indicated.
It’s a depressing coda for an event that was designed, at every level, to keep Trump interested, appeased, and engaged. Despite all that, the president once again opted to stymie multilateral efforts, flatter autocrats, and spurn his liberal allies.
With Macron taking over hosting responsibilities next year, it’s hard to imagine how any G-7 could truly be productive with Trump in attendance—even if he does leave early.
The post Can Trump Sit Through a Multilateral Meeting? appeared first on Foreign Policy.
