The G7’s Identity Crisis in an Era of Multipolar Tensions
Awa B. | 30 June 2025
Summary
The 2025 G7 Summit highlighted the widening divisions within the group due to rising multipolarity, geopolitical tensions, and leadership turnover.
Internal fragmentation, particularly regarding trade, climate, and security, weakened the bloc’s may hinder their ability to achieve collective action.
Continued disagreements and shifts in global power are likely to reduce the G7’s global influence, prompting the group to consider structural reforms or issue-based alliances in the coming years.
The Group of Seven (G7) Summit was held from 15 to 17 June 2025 in Kananaskis, Alberta. This demonstrated a growing identity crisis within the bloc due to differing views. The summit included new leaders such as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and returning figures including French President Emmanuel Macron and United States (US) President Donald Trump. The meeting occurred amidst heightened geopolitical tensions and differing national agendas, especially regarding trade policies, climate strategies, and responses to conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and more recently, Israel and Iran. John Kirton of the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto remarked to the Financial Times that “this G7 summit faces an unprecedented mix of global crises, new leaders, and an unpredictable US president,” highlighting the unique and challenging context surrounding recent international meetings.
Unlike previous summits, the meeting revealed significant internal fragmentation within the bloc. Trump’s isolationist and protectionist policies in defence and economy conflicted with efforts by the European Union (EU) leaders António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen, who wanted collective action on harsher sanctions against Russia. Simultaneously, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticised Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminium as "economic self-harm,"actively seeking exemptions at the G7 summit. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pursued a broader agreement with Trump covering migration, trade, and security, securing a temporary pause on tariffs by deploying troops to the U.S. border. Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea’s President Lee Jae-Myung pushed for closer U.S. cooperation on trade and North Korea, while UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney struggled at the G7 to unify stances on Ukraine support and global AI governance.
The absence of a joint communiqué at the summit’s conclusion showed significant divisions, particularly aligning with the EU's stance, which emphasised shared objectives around unified support for Ukraine and coherent global AI governance.The escalation between Israel and Iran heightened the urgency of the summit. Israeli military strikes and Tehran's subsequent retaliation caught leaders off guard. Following the summit, on June 22, the U.S. initiated Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear sites Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan using B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles. Iran retaliated the next day, June 23, by launching missile attacks against Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
Resistance towards Trump
Several G7 leaders signalled growing resistance to Trump’s unilateral approach. Carney, Macron and Ishiba were among those reported to be “not intimidated” by Trump’s tariff threats and transactional diplomacy. Their stance can be seen as a frustration of Trump's leadership style that often does not commit to collective decision-making. Officials from affected nations, such as Japan, Mexico, and South Korea, are expected to pursue bilateral talks to mitigate the impacts of US policies.
There has also been a further strain and concerns about the US’s shift away from participating in global climate and aid efforts. A clear shift away from US-led global cooperation has intensified criticism of Trump’s policies. The administration cancelled its involvement in major climate finance initiatives, including the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and the international “loss and damage” fund. Additionally, US representatives have skipped key UN and IPCC climate meetings, raising concerns about the country’s declining leadership role in environmental diplomacy. Cuts to foreign aid budgets particularly through USAID even as the United Nations (UN) warns of “life‑threatening consequences” from these reductions.
The implications can be severe as without strong U.S participation, international climate cooperation is weakened, potentially exacerbating global environmental crises and economic instability. Additionally, sharp cuts to USAID's foreign aid budget, occurring despite UN warnings about "life-threatening consequences," threaten to deepen humanitarian crises, undermining global stability and economic recovery efforts.
Externally, the G7’s effectiveness is being challenged by the emergence of different influential global actors and groups. Alternative forums such as BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and expanded members), the African Union and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) increasingly present diplomatic alternatives, particularly for countries historically excluded from G7 decision-making. These groups offer an alternative to the G7 by including a wider range of countries beyond the West. They are often viewed as more interrelated and united by shared geopolitical goals and a common interest in challenging Western-dominated global governance structures.
Government of Canada, CC BY 3.0 CA
Forecast
Medium-term (3-12 months)
There is a realistic possibility that if the fragmentation is continued this may result in the weakening of its influence at forums such as the G20 and COP30.
Diplomatic tensions within the G7 will likely slow international coordination on urgent issues
Long-term (>1 year)
The G7 faces a realistic possibility of structural reform, potentially expanding membership or creating more flexible partnerships to maintain relevance by 2026 and beyond.
There is a realistic possibility that alternative global forums like BRICS+ are likely to gain diplomatic leverage due to the ongoing lack of G7 consensus, influencing trade and investment flows away from traditional Western alliances.
