LIVE | G7 Press Conference: Donald Trump speaks following summit

Security is also very important, Mr. President. You are our friend in the union. Ceasefire is working. Across the board, efforts are being made. Your Excellency, you have made full efforts for peace. I have full confidence that in the agreement, the security of the ceasefire will also be ensured and it will get priority. Mr. President, you made efforts to reach an understanding, and I am confident that the issue of security will receive the highest priority during the implementation of this agreement. I fully appreciate your efforts to restore peace in West Asia and congratulate you, Mr. President. Once again, this is a very difficult commitment and an undertaking of peace and understanding.

Thank you, Mr. President. We just heard the prime minister praise your efforts. Do you think you can carry the momentum from the Iran deal over to securing an end to the war?

Americans would like to be able to do that. We'll take a look at it. They have those. Are you close to an India trade deal?

When do you go to India, and how do you see this grouping? This is a grouping that under your first term, all the countries are looking forward to.

Can Trump play any role? Do you expect India to play any role in West Asia?

Times that India has a great friend in the United States, in Washington DC, in the White House, as long as you are president. Some of your decisions recently caused concern in India. How would you reassure people?

Are there going to be sanctions that are going to be reimposed on Russia now that the focus has once again shifted to the Ukraine-Russia war?

They were to a leader, and we had G7 plus many of this game. As you know, the leader was thrilled. They could not have been happier. This gentleman came, and it's a big get. He came, and they can't even believe that it happened quickly, but it really didn't happen quickly. It happened. It's been happening for a long time. It's been happening from my first term when a very evil man named Soleimani was killed. That's what it started. And nobody else did this. You look at our president, 47 years Iran took advantage of the world, the Middle East, but the world. Nobody did anything. The Obama deal was one of the dumbest deals I've ever seen. It was a road to a nuclear weapon. My deal is a wall to a nuclear weapon. You're not going to have it. It's a war to a nuclear weapon. Mine sweepers. Do you want the Europeans to send mine sweepers? We don't need them, but if they want to send them, I think it's anyone committed to yes. All of them. The ones that have that kind of equipment have committed to being involved.

At this point, do you feel that Vladimir Putin is more responsible for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine?

Mr. President, you are on the verge of making history with the possible peace in the Iran conflict. I like this guy. You know what that is? Your report is much nicer than mine. But there is also the tragic loss of lives of Indian sailors recently, sir, in American strikes. Any words of condolences for the grieving family?

How long do you expect to be acting?

Mr. President, yes, ma'am. Confident this willing about... You know deals. My life deals that don't... Deals there and easily. So you never know what deals, do you? But you're going to find out pretty soon. I think it'll be done. They want to sign. They want to get back to a normal life. You know, we hit them very hard. Don't forget, you know, people talk about when this started. This didn't start three, five months ago. This started years ago when I took out Soleimani. That was a big event. There are those that say it was the biggest event in the Middle East in 50 years. So we took him out, and they became a much different country. And then we terminated the JCPOA. That's Barack Hussein Obama's horrible deal that gave them a nuclear weapon, and I terminated it, and I stopped it. And then I stopped it a second time with the B2 bombers. And these are all major events in the history of the world.

A detailed memorandum that goes into a regular contract would do it. If they don't, then that's okay. We have to start the process. Block and have navy aircraft of the leader, second level of leaders, third level of leaders, and they want to make a deal. They are so ready to make a deal.

Defense relationship between India and the United States. Sorry, I'm speeding. Can I speak to the defense relationship between India and the United States?

Is it to halt the military campaign?

Highly skilled Indian professionals to be getting more opportunities in the United States under your presidency. What does that mean?

We've seen European leaders interact very warmly with you at the summit. Do you think that they...?

How do you see India buying energy from you?

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for your presence at the end of this G7. 51 years after Rambouillet, this summit was an important moment. And let me begin by thanking all those who made it possible. Obviously, the commune and its inhabitants, who are very happy. I thank the mayor, all of her teams, all the communes that hosted the various events, the state services, all of our internal security forces, our military, our customs officers, our civil security, our firefighters, our healthcare workers, and many volunteers and teams who made this event possible in all its components. We were very proud to host this G7 in Évian, very proud to be here 23 years later for such an event, and to be able to highlight the beauty of our landscapes, our youth last night, our culture, and everything that makes our country rich. Let me also have a word for all the teams who worked hard on these texts, the teams at the Élysée and all the negotiating teams, the cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, in all the ministries that were called upon, the ministers who also led G7 meetings in their format, the protocol, the general secretariat of this G7 which had to oversee all operations, and all the teams who made this work possible. And then obviously, the host and the entire group. I wanted to say this because such events are only possible and successful when men and women commit and put all their energy into it. That's what has been done in recent days more visibly, but for months. So bravo to everyone. And I say bravo because it has not escaped anyone that this G7 was held in an extremely difficult context of world fragmentation, multiple crises, conflicts, and that much can be at stake during our exchanges, and that these last months had been marked more by fragmentation, divisions, or disagreements, and we had assumed them. This G7 allowed for a moment of unity, quality discussion, and real cooperation between the leaders at this summit. Indeed, it allowed us to coordinate very closely to respond to and work for our goals, first with a method that closely involved the G7 member countries, and we had partner countries: Kenya, which co-chaired the Africa Forward summit, South Korea, Brazil, and regional and international organizations. So it was really a G7+ that led this work from start to finish, which allowed us to arrive at these texts. We also involved President Zelenskyy. I will come back to an important discussion on Ukraine. We involved President Sisi, the Emir of Qatar, and the President of the UAE, and all the consequences on the Gulf. Obviously, the international organizations, the IMF, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and the OECD for specific sessions. Nine declarations were adopted unanimously, with some of them being G7+ declarations. But all G7 leaders adopted the geopolitical declaration, I will come back to that. A call from heads of state and government on the fight against cancer, a call from heads of state and government for a coordinated response to the Ebola epidemic, a declaration from heads of state and government on mutually beneficial international partnerships, the declaration on supply chains for critical minerals, the declaration for more balanced, sustainable, and resilient growth, and then the one against migrant trafficking and drug trafficking. And the last one will be a safe digital space for minors. Nine unanimous declarations. Let me come back to the main points. On Ukraine, the participation of President Zelenskyy allowed us to have an in-depth discussion on Ukraine, which for the first time in these terms allowed us to identify points of agreement. First, unwavering support for Ukraine, solidarity with its people, the essential impacts. Cultural heritage has been attacked after multiple attacks on the population. The Ukrainians have been incredibly resilient, and all members agreed on the need for this support, support for territorial integrity, the fact that the balance of power had profoundly changed in recent times. Ukraine is advancing, Russia is retreating. That is why we all agreed to increase the supply of air defense capabilities, additional investment systems, and capabilities. On this point, the American president insisted on the mobilization of the American defense industry's capacity to supply such equipment, and several of us insisted, at the request of the Ukrainians in recent months, on the importance of licensing production. With a support for energy infrastructure, the reconstruction of many things that were destroyed in the cold and darkness, many civilian populations at the same time, also financing for our partners in full safety and security. Finally, we are committed to increasing pressure through a strengthening of our sanctions, this mobilization to increase pressure on Russia. This comes a few weeks after the seizure of a shadow fleet ship by the French authorities, following the same operation with the cooperation of the British authorities. We are coordinating in an environment where oil and gas prices have changed recently. This is the first time there has been convergence. This is the first time that clearly, also within the G7, there could be measures, a real progress. It is also a condition for our collective effectiveness on the subject of the Ukrainian war of resistance. We then addressed the situation in the Middle East with, as I said, Qatar, Egypt, and the UAE. And there too, we have technical conclusions in the G7. We unanimously welcomed the very good agreement concluded between the United States of America and Iran and obtained by President Trump. It is an agreement that ends a situation of great instability, the consequences of which everyone sees, and so it was a good thing to put an end to it. We reaffirmed that the right of passage and transit without hindrance or toll through the Strait of Hormuz was the cornerstone of the beginning of this agreement and begins now. We agreed that the multinational and independent defense initiative that was fought by France and the United Kingdom was ready to play an important role in facilitating maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz by protecting merchant ships. This is obviously an offer that is made, but it depends on the agreements made between Iran and the United States of America, with the agreement also of Oman, which is on the other side of this strait. In any case, this is a readiness that we have confirmed, and there are several countries in the region ready to react very quickly. France has requested this, and we have about twenty countries that have already indicated their firm commitment to contribute to such an operation. In this agreement, we did not forget to emphasize the importance of free trade, also unanimous support was obtained for Lebanon. It is a solid and immediate ceasefire, an absolute urgency, and the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and all political and military authorities. In the Gaza Strip, we also committed to accelerating humanitarian efforts and to the rapid implementation of relevant political and security measures. And we called for an end to the violence in the West Bank, which was recalled by all and endorsed by all. We also committed to diversifying energy supply routes to reduce our international vulnerabilities linked to the Strait of Hormuz, that is, to jointly finance alternative routes for the circulation of gas and oil to leave the region and reach international routes. Our joint declaration also reaffirmed the G7's positions on the Indo-Pacific, which are historical and constant positions, but the importance of this point on the Near and Middle East is the fact that all G7 countries supported this agreement, but above all insisted on the importance of the Hormuz issue, Lebanon, and obviously the finalization of nuclear, ballistic, and regional destabilization discussions, which is a condition for the stability of the entire region. On other subjects, on international partnerships, on the subject on which we have fought a lot in recent years, we have also made concrete progress through the debates held, the ministerial meetings, and the agreement obtained. For this, we had a working meeting with partner countries: Brazil, South Korea, Egypt, India, and Kenya, as well as the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The G7 is relevant in this regard because it continues to represent about 70% of official development assistance. And our reflection comes from far away because it was built on the initiative that France had built for new financing for Africa in 2021. The new financial pact in 2023 led to the creation of the Partnership for the Prosperity of Peoples and the Planet and the Africa Forward summit in 2026, which we co-chaired with President Ruto. And fundamentally, what we have brought about in recent years and which has been consolidated and endorsed in this G7+ is, first of all, a profound change in philosophy. We defend a concept of solidarity investment, respectful partnership with countries, building solutions together for financing, and no longer a vertical aid that is made by donors who decide priorities with recipients who have little say. So the traditional system changes philosophy, and this is reflected. Then, it is the implementation of modernized tools with increased work from all international finance actors. And this is what we have built in recent years through the Quai d'Orsay initiative, the Ministry of Finance, and the AFD through Finance in Common. But we have consolidated and endorsed the work of Finance in Common, and we have also consolidated instruments to improve the complementarity of public and private financing. And in this regard, I refer you to the declaration to not be too long. We recalled the importance of solidarity towards countries and populations in the areas of health, nutrition, and education, which are real necessary investments for all. But we also acknowledged the support of first-loss guarantee mechanisms, which are the condition for private investments to be made, for example, on the African continent. Today, many countries have ratings or a lack of ratings that do not allow the private sector to deploy. This is the consensus we built at the Africa Forward summit. We decided to extend to the entire continent a mechanism that existed called ATIDI, which guarantees first losses. It was endorsed by the African Development Bank and African countries. And several G7 countries are entering its capital, accepting to provide guarantees and supporting its action, coordinating it with the action of the World Bank, the importance of MIGA and the fund that the World Bank is building to take second losses. This is an important advance, and we will ensure the implementation of this work with a checkpoint on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Besides this very important text, we also adopted a declaration in response to the Ebola epidemic. This declaration, beyond the G7 countries, was also supported by India, Egypt, South Korea, and Kenya. On Ebola, the message of support is clear: help the DRC, Uganda, and all territories that could be affected to face the epidemic. This requires the rapid development of a vaccine, effective treatment, and the establishment of adequate procedures in line with WHO standards. The G7 has committed to dedicating more than one billion in emergency response through this declaration, which is also very important, with a very strong commitment from Europeans and Americans behind this mechanism and close work with the Africa CDC. We also, this time in terms of scientific and health cooperation, acknowledged an important text on the fight against cancer for the first time in the history of the G7. And there too, it is a very important moment of reconvergence on health issues, which had sometimes given rise to disagreements or divisions. This priority reflects a universal reality. Cancer kills nearly 10 million people each year. By 2050, the number of new cases is expected to jump by 80% worldwide, due to demographic aging, environmental and behavioral risks. And so this ambitious declaration places at the heart of the fight against cancer mechanisms of cooperation through three major priorities: pediatric cancer, where we promote data sharing, cancers with poor prognosis, and universal access to quality care in both rich and developing countries. This summit, beyond these subjects, also allowed us to make real progress on the issue of major global macroeconomic imbalances with a view to building shared growth, thanks in particular to all the preparatory work we did on the expert report that was released last spring and the discussions we were able to hold. Fundamentally, we all acknowledged a text that defends a vision of balanced growth. We know the major global imbalances. China must deal with the problem of overcapacity, oversubsidies, and lack of domestic consumption. Europeans must invest more and modernize and simplify their economies, and the United States must deal with the issue of twin deficits. Consensus was established around these elements. Before this G7, we also managed, in an unprecedented way, to hold a virtual summit of convergences, and we held a videoconference on June 11 with the G7+ members and China, which is a first in over 20 years, which allowed us to put this observation on the table to engage in better coordination. But within the G7 and the G7+, we have really started to build very clear coordination elements, that is, to build unity and acknowledge that divisions, everything that fractures our economies, does not allow us to effectively resolve these imbalances. And so beyond the summit of convergences, which will in a way trigger a dynamic, we will continue with a view to the G20, where China will be around the table with many others. We very clearly affirmed, there too, mechanisms of cooperation within the G7+. First, by acknowledging the role of the IMF and its consolidation. By asking our ministers to work by September on key elements of cooperation on the issue of fertilizers, on the issue of food, which is absolutely key because that is where the imbalances are most striking and affect the most vulnerable populations. And we also acknowledged important texts on the resilience of our value chains, particularly critical minerals. On this subject, where we had started the discussion last year under the Canadian presidency, until then we had never managed to build concrete responses, and we had even rather risks of division in the face of a China that has sometimes accumulated strategic reserves, and that is not a reproach I make to them. It is a strategy that has been built over more than 15 years. We all face risks of overdependence and therefore vulnerability in our value chains. If we go in a scattered order, we will create overcapacity and even more serious imbalances. And so we agreed to go together in the G7 and even in the G7+ and together build cooperation projects. And these are very concrete projects that were adopted, moreover, in the annex to the declaration that I mentioned, that is, to reduce together our sources of dependence, to diversify together our sources of supply. 195 concrete projects, 64 billion euros of joint investments were built through this text, and this is a dynamic that we will continue. It is a key point to improve the resilience of our value chains, reduce their dependence, but do it cooperatively. Finally, we just held a discussion on digital and artificial intelligence with all the G7+ leaders and dozens of leaders from all G7 countries and from the digital and AI sectors. And what emerges from this discussion? First, the need to protect children online. We see the consensus rising from Canada to Britain, obviously through the European Union, Brazil, Australia was not there, but I want to salute its role at the forefront. Several of us have already taken concrete initiatives and are finalizing laws. We adopted a declaration to agree on the need to act and the importance of calling platforms to responsibility. And so this dynamic will continue, and Prime Minister Modi confirmed what he had begun to announce at the summit last February in Delhi. And so there too, India joins this group. What really makes the G7+ a platform, and what I would call our G7 DNA, are liberal democracies with developed economies. The G7+ associates other democracies, and together we have this same approach that is in line with our democratic values: protecting our children. But it was a very important moment and a very important step forward. Several of us also emphasized the importance of better regulating artificial intelligence and its labeling. There too, it is important to build initiatives. I will push it at the European level, but this consensus is necessary because we see the impact it has on our democracies. It was important to have this discussion with digital and AI leaders. And on artificial intelligence, we are all facing the same thing, and it was important to have this common discussion. We all want innovation. We all want computing capacity, data centers. We all want to develop the opportunities, productivity, transformations, improvements in health, digital that AI can bring. But no one can ignore, neither leaders nor economic leaders, the impact on our democracies, the impact on our societies of AI. And that is why the possibility and necessity of regulation is now imposed. It must be done on an international scale. We had started in the G7 with a Franco-Canadian initiative of the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence to build a first structure attached to the OECD. We must go further now and succeed in better regulating the challenge before us. And we had many discussions with AI and technology leaders as well as with the American administration. The challenge is these famous frontier models. We must succeed in better regulating them to prevent them from falling into the hands of authoritarian regimes or people who could threaten our cybersecurity or our societies. But to do this, the answer cannot be non-cooperation between democracies. And so, we are building, fundamentally, that's what we will build in the coming months, a platform for discussion and cooperation between a few democracies in the face of the risk of artificial intelligence. A platform for cooperation to define common standards together. A platform for cooperation to also share in terms of cybersecurity, more broadly security, the impacts and therefore the right response. That is exactly what we have acknowledged and what we will continue to work on with others. And there too, a checkpoint is given in September so that this work can be finalized by all our ministers, and we will meet again with a few leaders. In any case, there is a broad consensus to say that there too, international cooperation is necessary, and we will take stock in a few months. There, I don't want to be longer, just say that beyond what I have just detailed, important declarations were also concluded to fight together against drug trafficking, work on the establishment of an alliance of ports to better fight by strengthening coordination. You see the synergy with everything the government is doing today in France and to also fight against migrant trafficking with a text that is also in continuity with the Italian and then Canadian presidencies and allows us to improve our mechanisms in coordination and in synergy with the declaration on new partnerships that I just mentioned. This summit is not the end of our presidency. It ends at the end of the year, and so we will continue the work in the various ministerial formats required to also finalize certain points like the one I just mentioned on digital. But there have been many historic advances in the G7 on the subjects I have just mentioned and many very concrete advances that we have prepared in recent months, sometimes in recent days, that I wanted to clarify here and report to you. I will now answer your questions. Thank you.

Mr. President, hello. Valérie Leroux from Agence France-Presse. You have spoken a lot about convergence. On Ukraine, to be more precise, did we witness during this summit a turning point both in the attitude and in the position of President Trump concerning Ukraine? Will there be a before and after Évian on this subject? Did you also convince him that a negotiation with Russia must begin on the front line and not with territorial concessions in Donbas, which does not appear in the joint declaration of the seven leaders? And finally, are you sure you can trust President Trump even though he arrived here threatening France with new tariffs on French wines?

First, I have three elements. First element, the text we have endorsed is much stronger than what you just said since it recognizes Ukrainian territorial integrity. So it says exactly what we support as seven. It is not for us to say where the discussion on territories begins and how it is structured. We have always said that. Were we in the situation of the Ukrainians, we would not tolerate others stipulating for us. And so in a way, that's what we all endorsed. The question of territories is for the Ukrainians to discuss. On the other hand, what President Trump said very clearly, and it should be much tougher, is that the territories should return to the Ukrainians, they are their territory. He is right. And so support for Ukrainian territorial integrity states the G7's position. Then, we did not talk about discussion in this G7 text if you look closely. And that is the turning point. For months, the United States took the initiative, and we welcomed it. They said, 'We will negotiate with Russia because we, the United States of America, can build peace with Russia.' And tirelessly, I want to salute the American commitment in different formats. There was a discussion of hands extended to Russia. What was the response? Nothing. We Europeans are organizing ourselves. We said we will re-engage to discuss with Russia. Nothing. President Zelenskyy said, 'I will re-engage. I want to discuss. I am ready. I am even ready for President Putin to come, and we will discuss together.' He didn't come. Or you have to sign your surrender on the spot. So President Trump, like all of us, just acknowledged that there was no serious willingness from Russia today to discuss peace. And so I cannot tell you if there will be a before and after; it is not for me to judge. The facts will tell you, the Évian summit. What I can tell you is that there was a moment in Évian, for sure, on Ukraine. And this moment is that everyone listened to the state of the situation by President Zelenskyy with great respect, everyone noted that Ukraine was resisting much better than some might have thought, and that Russia was in a difficult situation, and that we all said we will increase our support for Ukraine, that we all said we will increase pressure on Russia, and that we all said we must hold this path. That is a real change. It is a real change compared to all the recent months. Not on the part of Europeans, but on the part of the G7 members and all those who are called upon to support Ukraine. So yes, I very deeply believe that this Évian summit is a very profound change in approach, a willingness of the United States of America to work with Europeans in support of Ukraine, a common will to move forward on this issue, and what was acknowledged in terms of military support on defense systems, long-range capabilities, and licensing is absolutely key. On your question about trust, I have always had trust in President Trump because I have always told him things. When we have disagreements, we assume them. But when he committed to us, he always did what he committed to. And today, the United States of America has committed on this subject. And that is important. There have been articles that could say that tariffs could reappear or some offhand remarks. I know one thing: we had a bilateral discussion at the beginning of this summit. This discussion was extremely clear and respectful between us, and this discussion allowed us to acknowledge that there was joint work to be done on all tariff relations to continue to improve the situation. And so what does that mean? The Europeans have just finalized their agreement on the text that was negotiated a year ago, an element of stability. If there are points that continue to cause problems on both sides, joint work. But in no case between partners should we impose tariffs or instability on each other. And so, I believe I can tell you that yes, this G7 allowed one thing very simply and very clearly: to discuss very precisely the points that could be points of misunderstanding and to develop together mechanisms of cooperation. So, it was positive.

Hello, Mr. President. Noémie Bisser from Le Journal. Did France and the other G7 countries ask President Trump to allow access to the latest Anthropic model? Does Europe, in your opinion, need these most advanced models? And if I can quickly come back to Ukraine, you told the Ukrainian president yesterday morning, if we heard correctly, that the discussions with the American president were difficult on Monday evening. Why? And can you tell us a little more about what happened? Thank you.

Well, I can very clearly tell you, we had discussions that allowed us to resynchronize our reading of the situation. They were extremely frank, I believe, extremely useful and fruitful since we endorsed in the G7 something that is a real step forward. And so I am very happy with the exchanges we had, the exchange we had afterwards with President Zelenskyy, and you know well that we could have had doubts or disagreements a little over a year ago. We start from a situation where there were real disagreements even between us. When we met a year ago for the G7, the position was very different. So we made things evolve. How? Well, the Europeans with great partners, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea built this coalition of the willing to say we will provide security guarantees. We held consistently alongside the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians resisted, had good results, and the United States of America looked with us in conscience at the situation, the importance of us all being together, the refusal, as I said to your colleague, of Russia to discuss sincerely, and the impossibility of moving forward on bases of discussion that are not acceptable. And so what allowed us to reach all the discussions, those we had in the G7 and then with President Zelenskyy, was fundamentally a resynchronization, a reconvergence, a cooperation of all in our approach to Ukraine and in the decisions we took and which are in our common text. It is a very good thing. Then, on frontier AI models, first, these are models that, by the computing power mobilized, mark very strong advances. Today, the Americans have them. What is their fear? That these models could be used by others to attack them or us. Faced with that, there is a very strong decision that was taken by the administration a few days ago. Good thing, awareness, it can be dangerous. Until then, there was a prevailing discourse that said never regulate anything. None of this is dangerous. It is a good thing that there is an awareness. Bad thing, the reaction is in a way strictly nationalist. I believe that the technical discussions that took place between technology and AI leaders and governments, between us, allowed us to shed light on the issues and to say fundamentally, what is your issue, our issue? It is that we all have access between democracies to these technologies. It is good for your companies because otherwise they have no market, because otherwise we will no longer buy any model made by one of these companies. If overnight you can turn the switch because the non-cooperative strategy kills the business model of any American AI player. If overnight it can be banned from the rest of the planet, it will reduce valuations. So the same capital, so the same computing capacities, so it is not good for you. Then it is stupid for us. Finally, what you want is that authoritarian regimes or third parties do not have access to this. So, let's go together and move forward. And so, the answer to that is we started the discussion, we have real openings, we will cooperate, our competent agencies must already cooperate so that on the security and cybersecurity level, we have a smooth government-to-government relationship. I am very confident in the coming days. And then, I think that between G7 members, in any case with a few key countries, a much more open policy is needed, including from the private sector. There too, I am confident for the coming weeks, I would say. Then in parallel, what do we do? Well, we will accelerate investments and the mobilization of computing capacities for our own models. You know, there are very few countries in the world outside the United States and outside China that can be in the competition for frontier models. France is lucky with Mistral to be part of this club. It is the only company in Europe. It is probably one of the two or three outside the US and China that can do it. That means we must go much faster to help them mobilize financing and increased computing capacities to catch up this gap as quickly as possible in the next 6 to 12 months. The key is there. But I believe the importance of the debate we had today and in recent days is fundamentally to say that all this can only be done intelligently if we cooperate between the few key democracies. Otherwise, we fracture the world and we don't have an effective response.

Hello, Mr. President. Bastien from TF1 and LCI. On Iran, you have once again spoken of a very good agreement, while we also hear a lot of concern about its solidity. So concretely, can you tell us what makes you say that this agreement is a good agreement? Do you think there are enough guarantees from the Iranians? And do you think it can lead to a long-term agreement as satisfactory as the one in 2015? And just to add, President Trump earlier threatened to bomb Iran again. Should that be taken seriously in your opinion? And does it also reflect a form of fragility in the situation?

I think that sometimes there are words or formulas that I understand the meaning of because I know the character, which is fundamentally about restoring his credibility by saying that there are deterrent capabilities. That's what President Trump means when he says that, in the same way that he can say things about tariffs. It is to remind that the United States has a deterrent capability. We know that. I think it should not be interpreted as a short-term threat. So that's important. There is an agreement that was signed. There were many people who said that no agreement should be signed. I think this agreement is a good thing, and that is why we support it, and moreover, that is why it was supported by all G7+ countries. Does it solve everything right away? No. But continuing the fight, what was it? Having the Strait of Hormuz closed for months, taking the risk of destroying oil and gas capacities that would have unbalanced everything for months or years, continuing the loss of life and the unacceptable situation in Lebanon, and the collapse of the entire region. So we have a humanitarian, political, and economic responsibility. So this agreement that ends the fighting everywhere from the Strait of Hormuz to Lebanon is a good thing. So I support it. I think it is necessary, and it is very good that there is this G7+ support behind the American decision. It is wise. Second thing, well, everyone must follow this agreement. So first and foremost, Iran, which has committed, including during the 60 days of the first phase, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, obviously to stop the fighting, and that behind it, all stakeholders also do not resume fighting in Lebanon, and that is key. Iran, Hezbollah, and behind them, Israel. I am not putting an equal sign, but I am just saying that whoever it is, the fighting must not resume. It must be peace. And then the key is indeed to finalize a good agreement on nuclear, ballistic activities, and regional risks. And so that is exactly what work will focus on in the coming weeks, with an important role for the International Atomic Energy Agency, with an important role for the few countries that are guarantors of the JCPOA and international sanctions, and France will play its role. So I think it is really the best possible situation we can have today. Does it solve everything? No. Are there risks? Yes, as in any situation. But it is important for us to put pressure to support it because it is the one that most surely allows for peace and most surely allows us to find a path to prosperity.

Hello, Mr. President, from Al-Maad Al-Arabi TV. I'm picking up a bit on my colleague's question about the agreement with Iran. To be more precise, did you get guarantees from the American president on the elimination of the enriched uranium stockpile? And if there are guarantees, what are these guarantees? Because Donald Trump says there is no urgency on this subject. And on Lebanon, Iran threatens to withdraw from the agreement if Israel does not respect the ceasefire or withdraws. So again, what guarantees did the United States give you in this regard? Thank you.

On enriched uranium, it will obviously be one of the key subjects of the nuclear agreement that must be finalized within 60 days at the latest. We know the modalities: either dilution on site or transfer under the authority of the IAEA. There are several technical modalities, but the question will obviously be part of the questions that must be resolved for there to be a nuclear agreement. It will simply be done at the end of these 60 days and the process that opens. What I think President Trump meant is that today the question is the ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and peace in Lebanon. So the two months to come are months during which we will resolve this question. It cannot be left open, obviously, just like the monitoring of potential enrichment activities in the future, monitoring of all sites, and the restoration of exhaustive work by the IAEA. On Lebanon, we know the situation, and so we know exactly what needs to be done. It is very complicated, it will not happen overnight. Iran must stop striking the territory. Hezbollah must stop launching activities on Lebanese soil or from Lebanese soil against Israel. Israel must stop reacting immediately. So it is a call for calm from everyone to stop the strikes and what affects the civilian population. It is a ceasefire. Then the key is support for President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam, his government, and the Lebanese armed forces. And it is to enable them to implement what they have committed to with great courage and constancy, that is, the monopoly of weapons in the hands of the Lebanese armed forces and the restoration of their authority over the entire territory. So these bombardments must absolutely stop so that progressively, over the entire territory, the Lebanese armed forces have regained total control, hold things, and calm returns. Progressively, we have a mechanism through progressive zones, as we did two years ago, so that the Lebanese armed forces can progressively regain control of their own territory and the international community can enforce the sovereignty of Lebanon. So in the short term, in any case, we know the protagonists, and it is a call to their responsibility. Iran obviously has an imminent responsibility. It is the one that must ensure that neither itself directly nor Hezbollah degrades the situation. And Israel also has a responsibility to respect this ceasefire as far as it is concerned. And I know that this was also the subject of many discussions between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump was very clear on this point with our full support.

Hello, Mr. President. Génial Cuiller from La Voix du Nord. Some French people wonder about the way you are rolling out the red carpet for Donald Trump. You recalled it yourself, you cite him three times in this joint declaration to congratulate him for an agreement whose contours are more than uncertain and whose risk is that it brings us back to a situation worse than before the war. There is this dinner at Versailles that you justify by the 250th anniversary of independence, without some in France being able to help but read a new seduction effort. Mr. President, aren't you doing too much for a president who can change his mind within the hour or even threaten France with economic retaliation? Mr. President, is this your idea of a balance of power? Thank you.

Thank you for your question. You know, if I had not consistently held the positions that have been mine in recent months, you might have doubts about the balance of power. But when it came to the security of Denmark and the question of Greenland, when it came to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and peace and security in Europe, when it came to our producers, I was never ambiguous or weak, and I was always clear in expressing my disagreements, very clear, either in Washington or in Davos or elsewhere. But I have always maintained dialogue because that is diplomacy. If diplomacy is only about receiving people with whom you totally agree, the question your successors will ask is fundamentally, what is the point of these meetings? You know you agree with these people, there's no point in seeing them. Look at all the subjects I've been talking about. If we hadn't seen President Trump today, his team, if we hadn't held this G7 for the last two days, where would we be on AI? A constant clash. Because otherwise this world only communicates through tweets or press releases. And so when we reconverge, when we manage to say we agree on the... I was the first to say when I thought it was not appropriate to carry out unilateral strikes without clear objectives. There is a peace signed with clear objectives, Lebanon is included, denuclearization, in any case clear guarantees on nuclear. I agree. I support. On Ukraine, we support territorial integrity. We strongly support their re-equipment, sanctions on Russia. We re-engage. Something is happening on artificial intelligence. We reconverge. Yes, something is happening. Everyone has their own style, and I don't control it, but I think the role of France is to stand firm and assert its voice when there are disagreements or when its interests are not taken into account. But it is also to be welcoming, to know how to honor its guests, and I do it for the Indian Prime Minister, the Indonesian President, the President of Kenya or Nigeria, up to the American President, because I think the strength of France is also that, and our great diplomatic actions have also been held by the ability to welcome the world or other great leaders well. That is also part of it. And let us not be ashamed of what we are. Versailles is a diplomatic instrument and an instrument of power. And you know what? I used it as early as June 2017. There were things we obtained, and then afterwards it didn't go as well with the president I hosted in June 2017. In any case, I fully assume it because each time, by holding a position of firmness or by re-engaging and welcoming warmly, I defend the interests of my country. That is what counts. And when I defend the interests of our country, France, I am keen to do so by welcoming people well, by making sure they are benevolent with us, and that afterwards they make the right decisions for us. I believe that is what the French expect of me, and fundamentally, I am like the French team, whether I play away or at home, my goal is to score goals. That's it. And when I host teams, I try to welcome them well.

We are coming to the end of this press conference. Thank you very much. One last question.

Thank you, Mr. President. It is a pleasure to be here, and I am asking questions on behalf of the other journalists from my country, Brazil. I am a correspondent in Europe for Globo, a Brazilian television network. Your team told me that you see President Lula as an important interlocutor with the global South, with the BRICS especially, but Brazil did not sign the majority of the declarations from these summits, from this G7. There is an interpretation that it was all for unity with President Donald Trump and with a discourse of antagonism against China, and also leaving aside very important questions and the roles of the UN or the climate crisis. What do you say to these criticisms? Are you disappointed with Brazil's position? And just to finish, did you also discuss with Lula the ban on Brazilian meat imports by the European Union? Thank you.

On your second question, it is a specific decision by the European Commissioner, who is doing his job well, that is, he checks whether health rules are respected. When they are not respected, he bans or re-inspects. That is what I have always defended because you are in a region that also has great agricultural potential. How do you want me to tell my producers, 'You don't have the right to use such and such an antibiotic to produce meat or milk,' and then we import meat or milk from the other side of the world that uses it? You'd be crazy. And President Lula is a great social and environmental leader. We are too, but we do it. So the European Commissioner is right, and we control. After your second question, I want to say that it is rather to President Lula that you should ask it. It is up to him to say if he commits. I will tell you very pragmatically what we did. Either we say we want to go on all subjects where we know we disagree with the United States of America on climate. We know we disagree on the role of the UN and peace. We know we disagree. That is also one of the subjects on which I stood firm. We tried to open them. When it doesn't work, we don't do a 6+1, otherwise there's no point in having a G7, and here we even have a G7+. On the other hand, I think it has a lot of value to have the United States of America sign with us a text on critical minerals and value chains. Enormous value. And it is in Brazil's interest to sign it with the United States of America. Not to do bad politics on the matter because then we are much stronger. And I tell you one thing, this G7 was never at any moment anti-Chinese because that is not France's position. It is unacceptable to say that. We are aware of the differences we have with China, particularly our relationship to democratic values, disagreements we can have there too, but there is always a policy of respect. We simply want to reduce our dependencies, but there is no conflict. It is not an anti-Chinese G7 at all. That was not the spirit at all, but we are moving forward. And so I think that signing a text with the United States of America on critical minerals, on cancer, on Ebola, on international partnerships, on trade, on AI, has a lot of value, and better than that. We had doubts at the beginning: would we agree on the Near and Middle East and would we agree on Ukraine? That's why there was no prior drafting. All the work done the day before yesterday and yesterday was to recreate convergences, hence this positive atmosphere. And these convergences, we put them in the hard stuff. And we signed with the United States a peace text for the Near and Middle East, a demand for peace for Lebanon, to prevent Iranian nuclear, and an unprecedented text of support for Ukraine. That has enormous value. So I defend this method because it produces results, it is good. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. I thank once again all the teams who made this possible and these advances, which for me are very important. It was a great honor to be here on behalf of France for this second G7 that we have organized in recent years. I will also have a word for our Swiss neighbors who helped us organize this G7 and who also had a lot of logistics to ensure and various elements to manage. And so I would really like to say a very big thank you for this cooperation. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. A big thank you. Good luck.