Trump and Macron: A Transactional “Bromance” Tested by War and Trade
BERLIN, 20 January 2026 – The relationship between US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron has long been characterised by a paradoxical blend of personal bonhomie and profound policy divergence. As 2026 begins, their partnership—often dubbed a political “bromance”—remains a central, if strained, pillar of transatlantic relations, having weathered significant storms over Ukraine and a lopsided trade agreement that continues to draw fierce criticism in Paris.
The Personal Equation: Handshakes, Accents, and “Outstanding” Relations
The dynamic between the two leaders has been a study in diplomatic theatre since their first meeting in 2017. It was defined early on by an infamous, prolonged handshake, interpreted as a machismo power struggle. This set a pattern of personal rapport that often contrasted with official discord. Trump has frequently praised Macron personally, calling their relationship “outstanding” and him a “very nice person,” even while publicly dismissing the French leader’s policy statements as not carrying “weight.”
This personal channel has been used for direct, and at times unorthodox, diplomacy. In 2025, Trump recounted a phone call on drug pricing by mimicking a French accent to impersonate Macron, illustrating his blunt, deal-centric approach. Macron, for his part, has invested significant effort in the relationship, hosting Trump for grand Bastille Day celebrations and leveraging their personal connection in high-stakes negotiations, most notably during a critical White House visit in February 2025.
The Ukraine Test: A Diplomatic Chasm in the Oval Office
The fundamental differences in their worldviews were laid bare during Macron’s visit to Washington on 24 February 2025, the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The meeting revealed a stark transatlantic divide. President Trump focused overwhelmingly on ending the “bloodletting” through a swift ceasefire and securing an “Economic Partnership” for the US to access Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, framing it as recouping American aid.
President Macron arrived with a European mandate to advocate for a “just, solid, and lasting” peace that would not equate to “a surrender of Ukraine.” He emphasised the need for security guarantees and publicly corrected Trump’s claim that European support consisted largely of loans, stating that the EU had provided 60% of the total effort through grants and guarantees. While Trump expressed openness to a European peacekeeping force, his transactional focus and unilateral engagement with Moscow highlighted a deep scepticism of the multilateral framework Macron champions.
The Trade War: From Tariff Threats to a “Dark Day” in Brussels
Economic tensions culminated in the summer of 2025. After months of threats, President Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on EU imports, with higher rates on steel, aluminium, and cars. A 90-day negotiation window was set to avoid an escalation to 50% tariffs. While Germany pushed for a swift deal, France warned against an agreement born of weakness.
The final deal, struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump in late July 2025, was immediately condemned in Paris. It set a 15% US tariff on most EU goods and committed the EU to hundreds of billions in purchases of American energy and investment. French Prime Minister François Bayrou called it a “dark day” of “submission,” a sentiment echoed across the French political spectrum from the right-wing National Rally to the left-wing France Unbowed, who saw it as an unbalanced fiasco that undermined European sovereignty.
Key Disagreements & Alignments
| Policy Area | Trump Position | Macron Position |
|---|---|---|
| Ukraine Conflict | Swift ceasefire; bilateral deal-making with Russia; recouping aid via resource access. | Peace with security guarantees for Ukraine; European-led peacekeeping; upholding Ukrainian sovereignty. |
| Trade & Economics | “America First”; use of tariffs as leverage; rebalancing trade deficits. | Defence of EU strategic autonomy; rejection of “trade war among allies”; multilateral rules-based order. |
| NATO & Defence | Transactional burden-sharing; criticism of allies not meeting spending targets. | European “strategic autonomy” within a revitalised alliance; increased EU defence cooperation. |
| Climate Change | Withdrew from Paris Agreement; prioritised fossil fuel interests. | Champion of the Paris Accord; called for a “low-carbon economy.” |
| Iran Nuclear Deal | Withdrew from JCPOA; “maximum pressure” campaign. | Defended the JCPOA as a foundation for a broader regional agreement. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the state of the Trump-Macron relationship in early 2026?
The relationship remains functionally transactional. The personal rapport allows for direct communication and has helped manage crises, such as coordinating on Ukraine. However, it has failed to bridge fundamental ideological gaps on multilateralism, trade, and European strategic independence, as evidenced by the contentious 2025 trade deal.
Why was France so critical of the 2025 EU-US trade agreement?
France viewed the agreement as profoundly unbalanced. It saw the 15% US tariff on EU exports as a punitive measure that the EU accepted under duress, while the bloc made major concessions on energy purchases and investment without securing equivalent US market access or a reduction in existing steel and auto tariffs. Paris considered it a failure of EU negotiation strategy that compromised European economic sovereignty.
Has Macron been successful in influencing Trump?
Macron’s influence has been limited to tempering or delaying actions rather than changing core Trump policies. He successfully maintained a dialogue on Ukraine when other channels were strained and helped frame the European peacekeeping proposal. However, he failed to sway Trump on major issues like the Iran deal, climate policy, or the fundamental principles of the US-EU trade relationship.
What does this relationship mean for Europe?
The Trump-Macron dynamic has accelerated European debates on “strategic autonomy.” The experience of transactional US diplomacy, particularly regarding Ukraine and trade, has reinforced French arguments for a more independent and capable EU, especially in defence and industrial policy, even among traditionally Atlanticist member states.