Notably absent in the statements are a few key words that were common in communications at previous G7 summits.MICHAEL KAPPELER/AFP/Getty Images
The seven joint statements released at the end of this week’s G7 summit in Alberta amount to nearly 5,000 words, with rhetoric condemning Iran, promising to harness AI for a better future, and committing to fight countries that threaten people outside their borders, as well as criminals who smuggle humans.
But notably absent in the statements are a few key words that were common in communications at previous G7 summits.
The very different vocabulary is partly a result of different formatting: This year’s statements are, together, a quarter the length of last year’s communique. But they are also a mark of changing priorities for global democratic leaders as they confront economic troubles at home and the upending of conventions from within their midst, largely by U.S. President Donald Trump.
The shift is also a mark of disunity. One key omission this year is Ukraine. The country’s name does not appear even once across the seven statements. The 2024 joint leaders’ communique, by contrast, mentions it 53 times.
G7 agrees on narrow set of issues as trade tensions overshadow summit
Ukraine is mentioned several times in a separate document, a chair’s statement released Tuesday night by Mr. Carney.
But it is not the only country to vanish. ”China” appeared 29 times last year – and not at all in 2025.
Other language, too, is considerably changed.
Last year, ”climate” appeared 55 times. This year, only once – in a reference to improving ”the investment climate of our partners."
In 2024, “gender” was mentioned 25 times. This year, just twice. Last year, “inclusion” appeared five times. In 2025, it is nowhere to be found. “Women” fell from 18 mentions to four; “children” from seven to zero.
“Equality” appeared 11 times in 2024. This year: zero.
The words “democracy” and “democratic” were included 22 times last year. In 2025, that fell to three. “Development” diminished from 80 references to 21, ”poverty” from six to zero.
Andrew Coyne: The G7 is dead – time to move on to the G6
Even “multilateral” is largely gone, its 15 mentions last year diminishing to two this year. “Unity” appeared three times last year; zero in 2025.
References to “research” and “academia,” however, increased this year. Quantum technology was discussed at much greater length, as were wildfires and critical minerals, both issues brought to the agenda by Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Mr. Carney’s chair’s statement does make brief mention of climate and the environment. It says some summit discussion was guided by recommendations that ”stressed the social and economic benefits of gender equality.”
The changed language in the joint statements, however, reflects a different kind of summit, one less focused on written outcomes.
“From the beginning, the Canadians wanted to focus much more on private discussion among leaders, a free and frank exchange – and to find out what Donald Trump was really thinking,” said John Kirton, a political scientist at the University of Toronto who is director of the G7 Research Group.
Besides, he said, ”almost nobody reads these classic G7 comprehensive communiques.”
Still, a comparison of the two years’ statements does reveal one thing they have in common: neither mentions “optimism” – or “hope.”