President Macron won the uphill battle of briefly nudging President Trump to Europe’s position on Ukraine. Other leaders should take note.
When French president Emmanuel Macron arrived in Washington for his first meeting with newly reelected US president Donald Trump, he could have hardly faced a more perplexing challenge: He had to convince the proud and self-absorbed leader of the free world, who appeared to be at the height of his power and recently had seemingly switched camp to the strategic adversary Russia while abandoning Western Europe, against all odds to embrace the old world’s views on the future of embattled Ukraine.
The intelligent and systemic approach adopted by the French maverick and trickster to pull off this upset in the White House is a timeless textbook example of how to successfully deal with a mighty and narcissistic mega-leader by transforming apparent weakness into real strength through the use of both traditional and novel maneuvers.
Instead of resorting to the quack nostrum of primitive and cheap flattery as many observers erroneously alleged, Macron took five interrelated smart steps that hinged on a well-calibrated balance between the “three Fs” of friendliness, firmness and forthcomingness. Other movers and shakers around the globe are well-advised to emulate the following magic formula for achievement when dealing with powerful and self-centered interlocutors.
1. Do your homework and enjoy the lion’s den
The French president had obviously completed all the necessary preparatory work before the meeting with his American counterpart, entering the Oval Office with a smart gameplan and a short list of effectful and razor-sharp talking points. Among other things, he apparently had reviewed valuable history lessons and previous meetings with Trump and settled on crystal-clear objectives. Those included reengaging Europe in the Ukraine peace process, exhibiting firmness in defending moral principles, ensuring an accurate reading of history, protecting Ukrainian interests and, above all, obtaining reliable security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent Russia from rekindling the war. Given that the ENA alumnus had also committed all the fruits of his homework to memory, he subsequently was able to speak without elaborate notes. It also appears that the French president had liaised with the French media beforehand, enabling him to orchestrate and choreograph subsequent events by calling upon a well-organized block of compatriot-journalists at opportune moments during the unfolding drama.
In contrast, Trump seemed to have done little preparatory work, for the most part fighting with a sword that had already been blunted. During the photo op in the Oval Office, he mainly regurgitated mantras and cliches (such as that the untestable claim that the war between Russia and Ukraine would never have happened under his watch). During the concluding press briefing in the East Room, he read a text that, judging by his note-fixated delivery, he possibly had seen for the first time. When preparedness meets unpreparedness, the prepared one is poised to relax and, as will be seen later, set the agenda and make important gains, too. Paradoxically, after you have completed your studies, you can act in an unstudied manner!
Indeed, when sitting in the Oval Office – a veritable lion’s den designed to impress visitors and put them on the wrong foot – and standing in the East Room, the French president appeared to be fully at ease and immensely enjoy himself. He seemed to savor every second of the consequential encounters and, because he was prepared, could act in a natural and spontaneous manner. In essence, the French president appears to have thought and behaved like a successful sportsman who looks forward to a decisive global competition watched by millions of people and enjoys his performance, whereas losers are timid and nervous. Perhaps the greatest example of such a true champion is the German tennis legend Boris Becker, who regarded the Center Court in Wimbledon as his much-beloved living room!
Operating from a position of inner strength, which is outwardly projected with calm and non-threatening confidence, is of utter importance when dealing with powerful leaders. Those usually have a knack for discovering weaknesses and skillfully exploiting them in a ruthless fashion. As a rule, the pressure exerted by the strongman increases exponentially with greater perceived fragility.
2. Use impactful non-verbal communication
The French president Macron is famous for his mastery of what I call the “politics of expressive tactility”, especially for his elaborate rituals of shaking the hands and patting the shoulders of flabbergasted dignitaries, which border on manhandling. In 2017, in a sign of outwardly projected strength, he grabbed Trump’s hands extremely tightly on the Champs Elysees in Paris, pulling and shaking them vehemently while tapping him on the shoulder for a felt eternity of 29 seconds. This time round, Trump, after snubbing his French counterpart by not meeting him at the entrance of the White House upon arrival, tried to reciprocate, leading to an almost comical, televised tug-of-war handshake competition between the two world leaders acting on a global stage.
While the jury might still be out on who won this fight for dominance, the Frenchman subsequently literally gained the upper hand in terms of powerful and situationally adapted non-verbal communication. His gestures, in a rare blend, exuded self-confidence, strength and assertiveness paired with kindness, openness and a willingness to connect. In the Oval Office, he sat with his legs spread comfortably and authoritatively, his arms outstretched and hands firmly holding his knees, and looking slightly from above, while often slightly leaning towards his interlocutor and even grasping the latter’s knees while smiling, thus combining uncompromising domination with joyful engagement. During the subsequent press briefing, he often turned to Trump when the latter was speaking to show that he was interested and listened actively. Whereas Macron usually kept close eye contact with his interlocutor, the US president often starred into the room in a grim and defensive manner. Moreover, Macron usually looked attentively into the surrounding group, establishing contact and sucking in vital signals, while confidently raising his eyebrows and knowledgably winking and smiling in the direction of certain journalists. At times, in a powerful change of body language, the French master communicator stretched out his index finger like a teacher, such as when he corrected Trump’s false claim that Europe had given all aid to Ukraine only in the form of loans. Macron’s powerful non-verbal communication catalyzed and reinforced all subsequent measures taken to “conquer” the White House.
3. Build connection sincerely and kindly
The outgoing and responsive French president managed to build rapport not only through his mastery of non-verbal communication but also through his verbal prowess. In particular, the authentic charmeur adjusted himself to the same wavelength as the US president and put his interlocutor in a happy mood, which is of crucial importance when dealing with an overbearing, brash and irascible personality like Trump. The Frenchman managed to talk quietly and pleasantly, but – contrary to widespread claims in the press – was not a mere whisperer.
Using the ancient rhetorical device of captatio benevolentiae (which is a Latin expression meaning “capture of goodwill”), the suave French president kindly lauded his American counterpart for initiating peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. It is germane to this theme that most observers erroneously blamed Macron for using flattery. In reality, the acknowledgment that he lavished on Trump, far from being an act of primitive and cheap bootlicking and sucking up to a more powerful man, was sincere, grounded in facts and therefore credible, while being undergirded by a strong sense of gratitude.
After all, breaking almost three years of radio silence between Russia and the collective West, which was only interrupted by occasional threats and insults, Donald Trump had taken the bold initiative to talk to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and subsequently remained undeterred by the widespread condemnation of this tactical gambit. Importantly, the US president prepared the ground for peace talks by dispensing with unhelpful, disparaging remarks.
Moreover, to instantaneously establish common ground and build strong rapport, Macron leveraged the social capital that he had built with Trump over many years. During the meeting in the Oval Office, the Frenchman stressed that he and Trump are personal friends and that France and the US as nations had been on amical terms through centuries. Both, during the photo op and subsequent press briefing, he fondly and gratefully recalled the US president-elect’s visit to France in December 2024 on the occasion of the re-opening of Notre-Dame of Paris after a fire had ravaged it, which, according to Macron, meant a lot for the French people. Such repetition paid off. Trump could connect well with this docking piece from the recent past, apprising those present in the Oval Office of the fact that Notre-Dame is a cathedral (!) and – succumbing to the universal human urge to reciprocate – commending Macron for a “phantastic” restoration job.
During the press briefing, Macron also skillfully picked up threads laid by Trump and emphasized the bond-building shared experiences at the national level during momentous events. Reiterating a theme mentioned by his American counterpart, he highlighted how France had been united in friendship with the American revolutionaries and subsequently during the two world wars. The Frenchman managed to amplify the themes of friendship and union, stirring the discourse into a direction that was pertinent for his subsequent advocacy for supporting embattled Ukraine. He pulled off this feat by appealing to an inspiring shared core belief with great clarity, namely, that it is important to defend peace and sovereignty and thus be on what he believes to be “the right side of history”.
Throughout his interactions with the US strongman, Macron skillfully varied social distance, alternating between courteous respect (such as when he called his counterpart “Mr. President”) and informality (on those occasions when he just spoke affectionately of “Dear Donald” or simply “Donald”). He also displayed modesty and addressed his counterpart with the appropriate degree of deference due to the powerful leader of the free world. For example, when asked what advice he could give Trump on how to obtain effective security guarantees from Putin, the Frenchman gave the following unassuming answer: “Look, I will never give any advice to President Trump.” Instead, he reframed his insights as a sharing of experience, even though in reality, his points served as stark lessons in history offered to Trump, who at times appears to be naive. Macron made his lessons vivid and compelling by weaving in stories, such as a reference to his seven-hour fruitless discussions with Putin before the latter launched his special military operation.
4. Take initiative courageously and inconspicuously
The French president blended his gentle bridge-building approach with varying degrees of fearless firmness, thus rising above the mundane role of a mere Trump-Versteher and gaining valuable credit points in France and the rest of anti-Russian Europe. Especially when dealing with a strongman, smart displays of strength are of vital importance, since in many situations involving back-alley combat and sandbox justice, the bully will only be swayed by superior force.
The French president displayed courage by not shying away from taking the initiative and setting the agenda even while being in the lion’s den, but did so in an unspectacular, unobtrusive and unimposing manner. Two innovative and disruptive moves stood out in this regard: acting as an orchestrator on foreign turf and skillfully switching languages to great effect.
According to convention, it is the prerequisite of a host to call upon journalists in a press gathering. Yet in a radical and astonishing break with this ritual, President Macron at time orchestrated the press pool in the Oval Office himself with natural ease, appointing journalists whom he gave the right to ask questions.
Moreover, while the French former investment banker on many occasions spoke in English to communicate directly with his counterpart and the rest of the English-speaking surrounding, he smartly and politely opted for French in special situations and thus achieved great impact. Even when he was in the Oval Office, he called upon French journalists and gave extensive answers in his native language. On the one hand, this insistence on French, which has been a common habit of many French leaders, was a display of patriotism. But more importantly, this ploy transformed weakness into strength by turning the state of being a guest on a foreign turf into an asset, effectively transforming the Oval Office into the French president’s reception room in the Palais de l’Élysée.
More specifically, by speaking French, Macron put the usually talkative Trump on the defensive. In metaphorical terms, he relegated the habitually dominating American Goliath into the unexpected role of passive and impotent observer, who had to listen to the French David’s tractates without comprehension. Trump’s body language said it all – the mighty leader of the free world often directed his eyes to the ground or stared into empty space. On one occasion, Trump reacted in apparent self-ironic resignation by praising French as the most beautiful language in the world while acknowledging that he had not understood a word!
Apart from changing the power dynamics, Macron also gained another advantage by switching to French, that is, the chance to present a lengthy, candid and forthright argument, including crucial points with which Trump did not agree, without being interrupted by the latter. This extended parrhesia was due to two factors: Firstly, Trump did not understand the French part and thus could not intervene, and secondly, it would have been very impolite to interrupt the French lady who acted as translator.
During his visit, Macron at times also took initiative more directly, assertively and forcefully and exuded an aura of dominance, partly based on a superior intellect and knowledge base. For example, when Trump was asked whether the U.S. had really agreed to shut down a military base in Greece, Macron, acting like a coach, directed Trump to other journalists, apparently because he – in contrast to Trump who had to ask his Secretary of State for advice – knew that this piece of news was false, thus showing that his grasp of American affairs was superior to that of the American president himself!
Moving even higher on the scale of non-confrontational forcefulness, Macron, when presented with false claims, refused to simply suck it up. Instead, he essentially fact-checked Trump, correcting his counterpart when he spread the fake news that Europe had loaned all aid money to Ukraine and explaining that Europe had provided a mix of different financing vehicles, including “real money”. Trump who obviously had not prepared for being challenged could only retort with a weak “If you believe that, it’s okay with me”.
Macron reinforced his position of strength by reaffirming moral principles. For example, he stated his preference for not automatically using frozen Russian assets to compensate Ukraine, since this would constitute a breach of international law. Of course, it has to be noted as a caveat that his stance on this issue could change.
Again, Macron amplified his message with powerfully self-assertive body language. At the start of his charming rebuke regarding Trump’s false claim related to loans, which he prefaced by “No, in fact, to be frank”, he firmly but gently placed his hand on Trump’s right arm and held it down, as a gentle dominator signaling the US president to be silent. Interestingly, Trump partly mimicked Macron’s free movements of hands during the fact checking episode. This meant that there was a high degree of harmonious synchronicity despite the US president in essence being chided while remaining dubious about the facts presented by Macron.
5. Gently gain and secure buy-in
Closing the circle in a ring composition from preparation to consolidation, the French president scored several valuable points and nudged his American counterpart into the desired direction, pocketing some important quick wins, often through the backdoor. At times, he managed to move Trump, who is often accused of repeating the narrative of the Russian “enemy”, to parrot Macron’s talking points.
Of course, it has to be noted as a caveat at the outset that given the US president’s notoriously erratic conduct, it is far from certain that Macron’s gains constitute a stable possession. It is sufficient for Trump to make some casual statements denying what had been said or implied during the meetings with Macron to conclude that the Frenchman’s success had been fleeting after all. Of course, such a denial would come at a cost to Trump, since he once again would lose credibility, as happened so often because of his many false claims and U-turns. For example, after calling Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky a dictator, he subsequently feigned bewilderment, saying in a smug tone: “I can’t believe I said that”. Nevertheless, reaping important gains at least for a moment from a few relatively short meetings on one single day on foreign territory constitutes already a significant achievement. So how did the Frenchman pull it off?
Firstly, Macron, unlike many other leaders – due to his excellent preparation, bridge-building efforts and agenda-setting initiative, all catalyzed and reinforced by skillful non-verbal communication – managed to communicate key messages, ticking off his carefully prepared talking points, without being cut short, bullied, condemned and corrected by the habitually overbearing US president, who tends to take things personally. For example, the Frenchman was able to portray Russia as the “aggressor” without objections from the US president and his stance that that Russia needs to pay for the human and material havoc it wrought one Ukraine. He also expressed his great respect and admiration for the bravery and resistance of the Ukrainian people and insisted on Ukraine’s sovereignty. Macron also contemplated building the capacity of the Ukrainian military with US credibility.
Obviously, one has to be careful to avoid constructing an argumentum ex silentio, reasoning and asseverating that because one’s interlocutor had not said anything, he therefore automatically agreed. But given that the shrewd US president usually immediately rebukes all important statements with which he does not agree, his silence was at least conspicuous. Apart from being charmed by Macron, it is possible that Trump still reserves for himself the option of upping military pressure against Russia if it does not bow to all of his demands and does not help him to achieve his personal plans, especially given that Russia is a partner of Iran, which is the archfoe of the US and Trump’s darling, Israel.
Secondly, the French president obtained outright gains, getting a foot in the door and nudging the US president in the desired direction. For example, Trump confirmed that the US is “helping Ukraine like nobody’s ever helped Ukraine before”. Furthermore, the US president agreed to the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine, which Macron wants to use to deter Russia from launching another invasion of Ukraine.
Interestingly, in this case, the French president apparently managed to catch his American counterpart off-guard and sow confusion, prompting him to make an off-the-cuff claim whose veracity appears to be doubtful. More specifically, Trump affirmed that Putin would consent to the presence of European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. Trump even doubled down by relating that he had specifically asked Putin this question and that the Russian president allegedly has “no problems” with it. One reason for why Trump might have lowered his guard is that he was overrelaxed due to Macron’s success in putting him at ease. Few people know what Putin really told him, but the fact that his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, after the conversation between Trump and Putin, categorically rejected the idea of allowing European troops into Ukraine – a clear position that was subsequently reiterated by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov – at least shed some doubt on Trump’s account or constitute a hint that the US president may have misunderstood the Putin regarding an issue that is of utmost importance to Russia in the grand scheme of things.
Even more importantly, when asked whether the European troops in Ukraine will have “backing from US troops”, the US president answered in the affirmative, saying: “We’re going to have a backing of some kind”, which can be understood as a promise by the US president that the European troops would get some sort of US support. It comes to a surprise that this later potential U-turn by the leader of the free world, which amounts to the American backstop that had been much coveted by Europe, has not been widely noticed, even if it was only an ephemeral policy stance that might be abandoned very soon.
The French president used skillful tactical maneuvers – including powerful rhetorical devices – to cement his wins. To start with, he often spoke in “we” terms to project unity and insinuate implied consent from this interlocutor. At times, he packaged crucial conjectures and imputations about the US position as mere after-thought, which could easily get overheard and thus remain apparently valid as an undisputed fact. A good case in point is Macron’s above-mentioned interest in building Ukraine’s military capacity after a peace deal, which he accompanied with the subsequent consequential statement: “We see US credibility here.”
In addition, the Frenchman repeated the US president’s promises, among other things, by paraphrasing and summarizing them at a given endpoint. All along, he was careful to give ownership and thus credit to his narcissistic American counterpart. Interestingly, this ploy can even be used for transferring ownership for one’s own ideas to others.
Moreover, Macron at times appeared to put words into Trump’s mouth in a courteous and deferential manner without being subsequently corrected. For example, the Frenchman stated: “We don’t want to preempt any sort of discussions that are currently underway, but we do share the same objective of building this lasting peace.” Yet it is not clear whether Trump, who is interested in quick wins achieved on a transactional basis, is ultimately interested in truly winning the peace. Furthermore, Macron claimed that Ukraine during the last few years had battled not only for its own independence and sovereignty, but also for what he called “our collective security” and held the front in this regard. This statement was reinforced by Macron making the following conjecture: “No one in this room wants to live in a world where it’s the law of the strongest and international borders can be violated from one day to the next by anyone.” Again, it is far from obvious that the freewheeling US president, who is keen on annexing Greenland and Canada and gain control over the Panama Canal would agree, but his silence was at least conspicuous and showed his unwillingness to fight a public battle against Macron.
Besides, the French maverick appealed to Trump’s super-ego in an unostentatious and discreet manner. For example, Macron implied that it would be a sign of weakness (which the US president, of course, wants to avoid at all expense) if the peace would constitute a surrender by Ukraine. He amplified this warning by reiterating his demand for security guarantees for this country after a ceasefire that must also safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty and full freedom of negotiation.
In conclusion, leaders around the world are well-advised to follow the above-mentioned five timeless rules that help to successfully handle a self-centered strongman. Mind you: When a powerful interlocutor like Trump calls you a tough negotiator, you know that you have failed, because this title is usually condescendingly conferred on weaklings.
Put in a nutshell, the French president Macron adopted a flexible and balanced approach, skillfully leveraging his foreignness and avoiding unnecessary confrontation, to secure and consolidate valuable gains. Importantly, instead of simply kowtowing to the US president and giving the store away, he smartly varied unassuming pliability with determined firmness in a continent fashion, achieving an optimal blend of methods in the end.
The French president’s artistic and versatile “Romanesque” style is characteristic of a people that had to live for a long time under the rule of the Roman conqueror and, in order to survive and prosper, needed to be highly adaptable. This flexibility contrasts sharply with the US president’s Anglo-Saxon stubborn and brash sturdiness (Trump has German and Scottish ancestors), honed during centuries of conquest – with the only viable alternative to total victory being total surrender.
This time round, the Frenchman – due to the above five-fold success recipe – proved to be lucky in being the winner in the epic battle between the two natural dispositions, for a precious moment converting weakness into strength and conquering the White House as a result. After all, to amplify a famous saying, luck is the meeting of opportunity with preparation, dexterity and versatility!
