Emmanuel Macron drew global attention at the World Economic Forum in Davos after delivering a pointed speech criticizing U.S. policy while wearing dark aviator sunglasses indoors.
The French president addressed global political and business leaders as debates over Greenland and potential U.S. tariffs intensified, but his appearance quickly became a parallel focus online.
Macron’s office said the sunglasses were worn to protect his eyes following a burst blood vessel, a medical explanation that did little to slow online speculation.
The eyewear, reportedly gifted in 2024 by French luxury brand Henry Jullien, became a visual symbol that merged diplomacy, fashion, and internet culture.
Social media activity surged within hours of the speech, with users dissecting both Macron’s remarks and his “Top Gun” inspired look.
Memes and comments circulated widely, referencing the 1986 Tom Cruise film and portraying a stylized standoff between Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump.
One widely shared post read, “Trump: be careful ... Macron is here,” while others questioned whether the glasses were appropriate for an indoor address.
Italian right-wing newspaper Libero labeled Macron a “great braggart,” reflecting criticism that framed the look as performative.
Even within European political circles, the moment was embraced humorously, with European affairs minister Benjamin Haddad sharing a meme featuring aviator-clad imagery and French symbolism.
The viral attention translated into commercial impact as worldwide searches for Henry Jullien eyewear spiked, peaking early Wednesday morning.
A spokesperson for the brand confirmed an unusually high volume of inquiries as attention focused on the Pacific S 01 model priced at €659.
Henry Jullien is owned by Italian group iVision Tech, whose shares rose nearly 6% following the surge in attention.
Beyond aesthetics, Macron used the Davos platform to denounce Washington’s stance on Greenland and trade.
He described threats of new tariffs, including on French wine and champagne, as “fundamentally unacceptable,” linking economic pressure to broader geopolitical tensions.
The episode underscored how symbolism and policy can intersect, amplifying diplomatic disputes in the digital age.