Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, in 2013. Credits: Gage Skidmore / Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

Donald Trump claims an America that has regained its centrality. Late June 2026 events, however, require testing that claim against facts. The 250th anniversary celebrations of the United States, negotiations with Iran, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, and Marco Rubio’s tour of the Gulf: these issues converge. This is not about proclaiming the end of american leadership, but about measuring its limits.

A Power Staged In Washington

The starting point is as political as it is diplomatic. On June 25, the program Le Débat de France 24 directly posed the question of American leadership. The panel brought together Stéphanie Antoine, former ambassador Sylvie Bermann, historian Dominique Vidal and Vice Admiral Michel Olhagaray. The program began with a contrast: Donald Trump rejects the idea of American decline and insists that America is back. At the same time, several crises show that Washington must negotiate, reassure and sometimes compromise.

This staging found a symbol the day before in Washington. In the portion of its article that is publicly available, Le Monde describes the launch of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The gathering, held on the National Mall, was highly personalized around the president. The event, which could have been a consensual civic ritual, took on the appearance of a political demonstration. That alone is not enough to judge American power. But it illuminates the narrative Donald Trump wants to impose: a presidency that readily conflates national greatness, partisan loyalty and displays of authority.

American leadership is not measured only by its ability to produce images. It is proven in the capacity to set the terms of an agreement, guarantee a strategic path and align partners. That is where the Iranian and maritime dossiers become decisive.

Iran Turns The Framework Agreement Into A Power Struggle

The first test concerns Iran. On June 24, Euronews reported that Tehran presented the framework agreement with Washington as an “American defeat.” Donald Trump threatened to halt talks if Iran imposed fees in the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian formulation is not a neutral piece of evidence. It is part of a political communication aimed at showing that the Islamic Republic is not subject to the American agenda.

The legally binding content of the arrangement remains, however, less clear than the slogans. Available sources speak of a framework agreement, a memorandum and technical discussions, not a finalized stabilized accord. This point matters: if Washington can announce progress, it cannot yet demonstrate that all essential terms belong to it. Iran, for its part, seeks to reintroduce its coastal sovereignty into the discussion about Hormuz. It also wants to limit the idea of freedom of navigation defined solely by the United States and its allies.

The June 26 sequence reinforces this reading. According to Anadolu, Iranian deputy minister Kazem Gharibabadi contested the “ambiguous arrangements” and routes decided without Tehran. In his view, passage through the strait cannot be guaranteed outside the considerations of the littoral state. This is not only a technical objection. It is a way of challenging the core of American leadership: the ability to get a common rule accepted in a strategic zone.

Hormuz, The Concrete Test Of American Leadership

The Strait of Hormuz is the second test, because it turns diplomacy into immediate security. On June 25, the International Maritime Organization announced the temporary suspension of its evacuation operation. This pause follows an attack on a vessel in the Gulf of Oman. Its secretary-general, Arsenio Dominguez, said he wanted to reconfirm security guarantees. The objective remains to carry out the plan to get thousands of seafarers out of the region.

This suspension gives a very concrete measure of the crisis. Freedom of navigation is no longer an abstract principle. It depends on identified corridors, operational guarantees and the restraint of regional actors. Otherwise, every transit can become a diplomatic or military incident. France 24 also reported, in its June 25 live coverage, that Marco Rubio rejected the idea of tolls in Hormuz. Oman stated that no transit fee would be imposed in a future arrangement.

The American position and that of the Gulf countries are meant to be firm. According to Anadolu, the communiqué published after the Manama meeting rejected tolls, fees and attempts at control. It defended free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation through the strait. But the very need to repeat that formula shows that the balance of power remains open.

Allies To Reassure As Much As To Command

The third test concerns allies. In the Gulf, Marco Rubio is not content to speak to Iran. He must reassure partners who want American protection without being pulled into an uncontrolled escalation. Discussions about Lebanon, maritime security and Iran’s nuclear program form a single picture. The United States remains the dominant military and diplomatic pole. But that position now requires constant negotiation with regional capitals that defend their own wiggle room.

This nuance strongly complicates the idea of an “end” to American leadership. The United States still wields a weight few actors can match. They convene meetings, draft communiqués, influence security guarantees and remain the central interlocutor for their Gulf allies. But this leadership appears less vertical. It operates through transactions, guarantees and reciprocal pressures, rather than by simple edict.

Iran has understood this. By presenting the framework agreement as a political victory, Tehran seeks to prove that Washington does not set the rules alone. It pursues the same objective by contesting routes and transit conditions in Hormuz. Oman has understood too, positioning itself as a transit and mediation actor. The Gulf allies support the American line while seeking to limit the regional costs of a prolonged standoff.

A Contested Authority, Not An Erased One

The question posed by France 24 therefore deserves a cautious answer. No, the verified elements do not allow one to assert that Trump American leadership is over. American power remains central in the diplomatic and security architecture of the issue. But the Iran-Hormuz episode shows a leadership that is more contested and more transactional. It depends more on concrete guarantees than the slogan America is back Trump suggests.

From the facts presented, the contrast takes shape as follows: in Washington, Donald Trump stages a self-assured power. In the Gulf, his administration still must produce security, freedom of navigation and acceptable compromises. This is not a definitive verdict on the future of Trump foreign policy. It is a more cautious reading: less the end of that leadership than a severe test of its credibility.