G7 in the Rockies: A Summit at the Edge of Global Uncertainty

But the scenery is about the only thing serene. As world leaders arrived, the mood was anything but relaxed. The summit opened today with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney calling it “one of those turning points in history,” a phrase that felt less like diplomatic hyperbole and more like a warning siren echoing through the pines.

I’ve covered my share of summits, but rarely have I seen such a potent mix of anxiety and calculation among the world’s most powerful democracies. The G7’s agenda is packed: trade wars, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, a new and dangerous escalation between Israel and Iran, and the ever-present specter of climate change and China’s economic muscle. But the real wild card, as always, is Donald Trump.

Trump’s Return: No Joint Statement, No Guarantees

If you remember the infamous 2018 G7 photo—Trump, arms folded, Angela Merkel leaning in, the rest of the leaders arrayed like exasperated parents—this year’s summit feels like a sequel with even higher stakes. Trump’s return to the G7 has already upended tradition. There will be no joint statement this year, a move designed to avoid the kind of public rupture that marked his last visit to Canada. The message is clear: consensus is fragile, and the risk of diplomatic fireworks is real.

Trump’s approach to trade is as combative as ever. He’s imposed sweeping tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos, hitting allies like Japan, Canada, and Mexico hard. He’s also floated the idea of raising tariffs even further next month. When asked about new trade deals as he left the White House, Trump quipped, “All we have to do is send a letter, ‘This is what you’re going to have to pay.’” It’s a line that might play well at rallies, but it’s left America’s closest partners wary and, frankly, exhausted.

Global Flashpoints: Ukraine, Gaza, and the Israel-Iran Crisis

The summit’s agenda reads like a checklist of the world’s most urgent crises. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza grind on with no end in sight. The Israel-Iran conflict has escalated dramatically, with recent missile strikes and threats that have left leaders scrambling for a response. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, newly arrived and eager to avoid confrontation, said he expects “intense discussions” on de-escalation. But the reality is that the G7’s ability to shape outcomes in these conflicts is limited, especially when unity is in such short supply.

The Art of Avoidance: Bilateral Meetings and Diplomatic Sidesteps

Instead of the usual roundtable unity, this year’s summit is shaping up as a series of bilateral meetings—Trump with Carney, Trump with Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The other leaders, from Germany’s chancellor to France’s Emmanuel Macron, are walking a tightrope: keep Trump engaged, avoid public spats, and try to coax some kind of cooperation on issues like China’s economic influence and the future of the global order.

One Canadian official told me, only half-joking, that the summit’s unofficial motto is “Don’t poke the bear.” The hope is that by avoiding confrontation, the G7 can at least keep the lines of communication open. But as one veteran of past summits put it, “Trump doesn’t like the big round table as much as he likes the one-on-one. And those meetings can be fraught.” iAsk.ca

Canada’s Role: Host, Mediator, and Target

For Canada, hosting the G7 is both an honor and a headache. Prime Minister Carney has made it clear that Canada can no longer take the U.S. for granted as a reliable partner. The country faces its own tariffs, justified by Trump as a measure against fentanyl smuggling, and the threat of being sidelined in new trade deals. There’s even been talk—again, mostly for show—of Trump wanting to make Canada the 51st state. It’s the kind of bluster that would be laughable if it weren’t so destabilizing.

The Stakes: Can the G7 Survive?

Beneath all the maneuvering is a deeper question: can the G7 survive this era of division and disruption? The group was founded in 1973 to foster cooperation among the world’s leading economies. But with Trump openly questioning the value of alliances and the very idea of a “rules-based international order,” the future of the G7 itself is in doubt.

As I watched the leaders arrive, I couldn’t help but think of that old summit cliché: “personal relationships matter.” This year, they matter more than ever. But whether that’s enough to keep the G7 relevant—and the world a little safer—remains to be seen.