Inside Trump's decision to bail on the G7 early: A Middle East crisis and a distaste for group projects
It only took a few hours of summitry in the Canadian woods on Monday for President Donald Trump to decide he'd rather be elsewhere.
Returning to Washington on an overnight flight, Trump attributed his decision to abruptly abandon the Group of 7 summit to operational security, suggesting there could be prying ears among the fir trees listening to his secret conversations.
'I don't believe in telephones, because people like you listen to them,' he told reporters on Air Force One. 'Being on the scene is much better, and we did everything I had to do at the G7.'
Everything he had to do, yes. But not quite everything his counterparts had planned for him at the first international conference of his second term, where attempts to avoid open rupture were almost immediately scuttled the moment Trump first appeared before cameras to object to an 11-year-old decision to eject Russia from the group.
Back in Washington on Tuesday, Trump was planning to meet with national security officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss the situation in the Middle East. He said as he was flying home he was seeking a 'real end' to the conflict rather than a ceasefire, and described himself as 'not too much in the mood to negotiate.'
His vice president wrote on X that Trump 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,' hinting at increased US involvement in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. And Trump issued a series of afternoon posts on Truth Social that seemed to take a more menacing posture toward Iran, noting the US knew the supreme leader's location and calling for 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!'
Though he initially framed his departure from Alberta as a matter of great urgency, he told reporters heading back to Washington that the picture would be clearer on Israel's intentions 'over the next two days.' If there was a imminent and specific reason for his abrupt departure, he and aides didn't reveal it.
If one thing was clear, it was Trump's belief that the Middle East crisis wouldn't be resolved in the woods of Canada. Though he was surrounded by his foreign counterparts, Trump appeared to give little weight to the idea of collective action, believing instead it was his decisions – and his alone – that could determine the fate of the region.
A day earlier, European leaders had been scrambling to complete a joint leaders' statement calling for de-escalation between Israel and Iran. They'd met resistance from US officials, who objected to some of the language in the draft and signaled that Trump would not sign on, officials familiar with the matter said.
By the time a leaders' dinner rolled around late Monday — hours after Trump announced he would be departing a day early — some of the language in the statement had been watered down. With some urging from his counterparts over their meal, Trump said he would sign off, two US officials said.
But as he returned to Washington, he seemed mostly uninterested in the details. He said he hadn't read the document.
Never one for group meetings, nor particularly fond of rustic lodges, Trump had wavered on attending this week's G7 at all. Organizers took pains to adjust the schedule and expectations to meet Trump's preferences, Western officials said. Instead of a lengthy joint communiqué to issue at the summit's conclusion, shorter statements on individual topics were prepared in the hopes a few disputed lines would not scupper a broader show of unity.
And instead of stacking the agenda with back-to-back group sessions, which even presidents before Trump have described as tedious, time was left for more lively one-on-ones that would allow leaders to engage Trump informally.
The goal: don't let Trump get bored. That, many European officials believe, is when disaster can strike.
Trump's aides said before the summit began that foreign leaders were scrambling to meet him, in part to make their case on trade deals that could avoid punishing new tariffs next month.
And it did appear as if the line to engage Trump stretched well out the door of the Kananaskis Mountain Lodge. Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney began by wishing Trump a happy birthday. Other leaders came armed with gifts. The president of the European Council, António Costa, handed Trump a Portugal shirt signed by soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo.
Trade — the topic Trump came to Canada to discuss — was indeed discussed. After avoiding her for months, Trump finally sat for talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as they work out terms of a trade deal.
And he was eager to showcase a new trade pact with the United Kingdom, though he mistakenly identified it as an agreement with the European Union and the papers fell all over the ground as he was showing them to reporters.
'A very important document,' Prime Minister Keir Starmer deadpanned after bending down to scoop up the signed agreement.
But all of the individual attention was not enough to keep Trump in Canada. By mid-afternoon, it was clear to aides he wanted to leave early, a White House official said. The crisis in the Middle East had preoccupied the president, who constantly asked for updates amid the meetings, the official said.
'As soon as I leave here, we're going to be doing something. But I have to leave here,' he said during his appearance with Starmer, suggesting he was under pressure to depart.
Trump's counterparts tried to take the news in stride.
'I am very grateful for the president's presence and I fully understand why he is leaving,' Carney said as he and Trump departed the summit's ritual family photo.
French President Emmanuel Macron described Trump's early departure as a positive sign, saying there had been an offer 'to get a ceasefire and to then kick-start broader discussions' between Iran and Israel.
Trump denied that as he was departing, calling Macron 'publicity seeking' and misinformed.
'Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong,' Trump wrote as his plane was taxiing in Calgary, having just left Macron and the other leaders behind in the mountains.
In the sky above the airport, a plane carrying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — who had been planning to meet Trump on Tuesday — was waiting to land.
The two men did not cross paths.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP hawks clash with MAGA isolationists as Trump contemplates next steps in Iran
(CNN) — As President Donald Trump prepared to leave the G7 summit a day early amid an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, he dialed up his go-to national security confidant Sen. Lindsey Graham — who's also one of the GOP's most vocal war hawks. In that phone call, Graham said he personally urged Trump to go 'all in' to end any hope Iran had of attaining a nuclear weapon, using the considerable might of the US military if necessary. After months of talks with Iran ahead of Israel's strikes last week, Graham now warned Trump: The window for diplomacy has passed. 'I said, 'Mr. President, this is a historic moment. Four presidents have promised that they won't get a nuclear weapon on your watch. You can fulfill that promise,' Graham said, recalling his conversation with Trump. The call reflects how Trump, who has embraced a more isolationist approach than many of his GOP predecessors, is navigating competing forces within his own party as he contemplates whether to order the US military to strike Iranian nuclear sites. On one side: traditional Republicans like Graham who are eager to see the US flex its military muscle. On the other, key MAGA allies like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has forcefully argued this week that anyone 'slobbering' for the US to intervene in Iran is not in line with Trump's politics. Greene told CNN she has traded texts with the president recently, though she would not divulge their conversation. 'We have all been very vocal for days now urging, 'Let's be America first. Let's stay out,'' Greene told CNN on Tuesday of the pressure campaign, which she said has included more isolationist Republicans like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz. The lobbying has played out publicly and privately, with Republicans taking aim at one another as they have jockeyed for Trump's attention. In public appearances since his phone call with Trump, Graham has pushed a specific plan for Trump to use the US military to attack a secretive Iranian nuclear site, which is so deep underground that the only way to destroy it would be using a massive bomb that only America possesses. That kind of move would also require a US bomber to enter Iranian airspace — a major escalation of the American role in the conflict. Two US officials told CNN Tuesday Trump was increasingly receptive to that approach, and less interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'The president, he's his own man. Everyone who knows Donald Trump knows he makes up his own mind. But I think it's important to discuss. We have to let him know what we think,' Greene told CNN, adding that she's been getting a flood of calls to her office supporting her position. 'Many Americans just do not want to be involved. That's why I spoke up and have been vocal about it.' As the president huddled in the Situation Room with his top advisers to weigh his options on Tuesday, a small group of House and Senate lawmakers — including at least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie — have been privately mobilizing one possible way to check Trump's power in Congress. In the last 24 hours, two lawmakers have introduced War Powers Resolutions that would formally limit Trump's power to deploy the military without Congress' specific consent. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading the push in the Senate, with Massie taking lead on the House measure. Such an effort could face tall odds in the GOP-controlled chambers of Congress, particularly if a vote comes before more Trump action in the Middle East. But both measures in the House and Senate are expected to be 'privileged,' which means leaders will be forced to bring it to the floor. That could be a major headache for both parties, with Democratic progressives and GOP ultraconservatives known to veer from their own party orthodoxy on war powers matters. Debate on the Senate measure is expected to come to a head in the coming days, with a vote as soon as next Wednesday, Kaine told CNN. It could have robust Democratic support. 'I believe Congress and the Senate, Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our authority,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on whether he would support the measure. In the House, the timeline for a vote is less clear. Massie formally introduced the measure on Tuesday but privately has not yet indicated when he might force it to the floor, as lawmakers of both parties closely watch Trump's next steps, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions. In the House, GOP leaders have moved to prevent contentious measures from coming to the floor before — but it's not clear the votes would be there to do that this time, according to one person familiar with the discussions. Lawmakers' calculus could also be upended by what Trump does in the coming days, sources in both parties told CNN. That includes whether Trump escalates the conflict by using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities like the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the deep underground facility that is seen as key to Iran's desires to constructing a unclear weapon. 'If that happens, then it's a game changing calculation,' one congressional source told CNN. Greene and Massie are not the only Hill Republicans vocally opposed to Trump increasing US involvement in the conflict. Sen. Josh Hawley, another critic of intervening in foreign wars, spoke to Trump about this topic, including others, in a recent call. He said Trump 'wisely' did not talk about offensive action with Iran in their conversation. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky noted that Trump has in the past held back, and said he hoped he would do so again. 'I think the lingering chance for diplomacy comes from restraint. The President has shown restraint in the past,' Paul said. 'The president's instincts are good, and I'm hoping the President will not get involved with the war. I think, if the United States actively bombs Tehran, the possibility of negotiation goes out the window.' Trump has sparred with both Massie and Paul over his domestic agenda, and multiple Republicans told CNN it appears that the White House is listening more to war hawks like Graham than his isolationist allies. Some of those Republicans pointed to Trump's dig at conservative commentator Tucker Carlson earlier this week, after Carlson accused the president of being 'complicit in an act of war' in Israel's strikes on Iran. Carlson also called on the US to decouple itself from Israel altogether — not providing any funding or weapons to assist its long-time ally. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' the president told reporters in response. Hill Republicans took notice of the flap. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the veteran Kentucky Republican and leading defense hawk, singled out both Carlson and Bannon to CNN on Monday. 'I think what's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed that we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians — it's the same kind of complaint they had about helping Ukraine,' McConnell said in rare public remarks to reporters since leaving his leadership post. 'I would say it's been kind of a bad week for the isolationists.' Asked if he thinks the GOP's isolationist wing has too much sway with President Donald Trump, McConnell said: 'I think that remains to be seen. The president still has the opportunity do the right thing. I think he will. … I think we ought to help the Israelis win and help the Ukrainians win. It's in our interest to do that.'
Time Magazine
6 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
