Slap or playful tap? Macron’s Vietnam tarmac moment sparks debate on power, privacy, and perception
A short video, just a few seconds long and filmed on the Vietnamese tarmac, was enough to reignite debate over the French presidential couple’s private life—and the limits of transparency in politics. Emmanuel Macron was seen receiving a light slap on the face from his wife Brigitte. Was it an affectionate gesture or an inappropriate impulse? Some commentators argue this seemingly trivial image reveals more than it appears.
Brigitte Macron gifle Emmanuel Macron à leur descente d’avion @ DR
The incident—if one can call it that—took place during an official visit to Vietnam. As the couple disembarked from the presidential aircraft, cameras caught a brief motion by Brigitte Macron toward her husband: a light tap on his face or cheek. The Élysée Palace quickly described it as mere “horseplay.” The word amused some, intrigued others, and did little to calm the buzz. Presidential aides insisted it was nothing more than a moment of lighthearted teasing between spouses.
But online, the image caught fire. Some, like French journalist Vincent Hervouët on the CNews set, took it further—sparking controversy with remarks about symbols of power, political masculinity, and public perception of a head of state. “There’s this idea that the President could be a battered man,” he said, provoking outrage from other guests on the panel.
Between voyeurism and political symbolism
The furor, many argue, is less about the gesture itself and more about the context in which it is interpreted. Modern cameras follow political leaders relentlessly, capturing every smirk, sigh, and frown. The era in which presidents could maintain strict privacy is long gone. As Hervouët put it, “official life has become public.”
To him, the issue goes beyond domestic matters. “Can you imagine Yvonne de Gaulle slapping the General?” he asked, highlighting what he sees as a rupture with France’s traditional republican imagery.
It’s not merely about whether Brigitte acted tenderly or not, but rather that the President—an embodiment of national authority—was seen in a moment of vulnerability, in an inverted dynamic of power.