Dishing on Davos — Reading Room

FP’s editor in chief reflects on the mood at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting.  
  
| | | VIEW IN BROWSER  
---  
| |   
---  
| |   
---  
| **Ravi Agrawal** is the editor in chief of _Foreign Policy_ and host of FP Live.   
---  
| |   
---  
| **Ravi Agrawal** is the editor in chief of _Foreign Policy_ and host of FP Live.   
---  
| |   
Dear FP Insiders,I promised you some exclusive (and gossipy) reflections from this year’s World Economic Forum meeting, so here goes. First off: Why is this even important? It’s a good question to ask. There are now literally dozens of large annual conferences—think of Milken; TED; the Munich Security Conference; UNGA; and so many others in Brussels, Doha, London, New Delhi, and Singapore—but the WEF’s Davos gathering is the broadest in scope. It remains the place that world leaders, CEOs, and celebrities trek to in large part because other world leaders, CEOs, and celebrities are going to be there. There’s a certain network effect, even though many longtime attendees love to complain about the subpar hotels, icy pavements, traffic snarls, and the unofficial events that have multiplied across the tiny ski town. But delegates secretly love the summit’s caste system, where white-badge holders have a status among the highest levels of access. Timing matters, too. WEF’s Davos shindig is held near the start of the year, when type-A folks are looking to hit the ground running with big plans and bigger deals. This year’s Davos felt different, though. A lot of that has to do with two leaders: **U.S. President** **Donald Trump** is the obvious one, even though he only beamed in from afar, and Argentina’s **Javier Milei** , who delivered a fiery diatribe against what he called “wokeism.” At a deeper level, there’s the uncomfortable fact that many of the things that Davos once formed a consensus over—more globalization and free trade, for example, or goals around ESG standards and prioritizing a rules-based global order—are now areas of greater divergence than at any point since the conference’s inception.**TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP** The opening day of the summit was always destined to be overshadowed by Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C. (I showed up late to **Bill Browder** ’s much-loved dinner, now in its 29th year, to make sure I caught the entirety of Trump’s speech.) But it wasn’t just a Day 1 thing. Trump inevitably popped up in every conversation of every day, reaching a crescendo on the penultimate night, when rumors spread that he would make a surprise in-person appearance. In the end, Trump delivered a virtual talk in which he reeled off a list of executive orders made as part of his “revolution of common sense.”Much of what Trump said will be familiar to FP Insiders. Three things stood out to me as noteworthy: First, as one **European foreign minister** put it to me, Trump came off as tough on Russia with his call for choking Moscow’s supply of cash by bringing down the price of oil. This was, the minister admitted, a more hawkish stance than expected, and it was in fact worth cautiously appreciating, if not cheering. As it happens, I spoke with several people willing to see an unlikely geopolitical upside to Trump’s win. **Harvard University professor Graham Allison** even laid down a bet: “At even odds, I’ll bet that six months from now, the war in Ukraine will be over. The main factor that leads to this conclusion is a Trump initiative. And China and Xi Jinping will have played a supporting role in reaching this conclusion.” Second, Trump’s demand that NATO countries up their defense spending to as much a 5 percent of their GDP—the current benchmark is 2 percent—was met by Europeans with a sense of realism rather than shock. As **NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte** put it in one public session, European countries needed to spend more on defense for their own good, and not just because Trump said so. (Europeans were less keen to talk about Trump’s threats to invade Greenland, however. At one of my public panels, when I asked **Andrius Kubilius**  about the self-governing country within Denmark, the **European commissioner for space and defense**  repeatedly dodged the question. You can watch a recording of that session on FP Live.)  Third, countries and companies seem to be adopting a strategy of flattery and bribery to appeal to Trump, as I predicted might happen in an essay in our latest print magazine. In an interaction with a group of reporters and editors, **Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky** expressed frustration with Europe’s inability to deliver on security guarantees and sufficient aid to Kyiv. He then went on to say that “if Trump wants us in NATO, we’re in; if he wants us out, we’re out.” It was as if to signal that Trump alone could resolve the war—a conclusion that would no doubt please the new POTUS. Perhaps the most blatant examples of flattery came from business leaders, continuing the tone set by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month.**SPEAKING OF CEOs …** There was little doubt at Davos that business leaders are excited about Trump’s promise to slash taxes, ease regulations, and create a permission structure to move on from catchphrases such as DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and ESG (referring to environmental, social, and governance standards). Instead of ESG, which now seems to have become a toxic acronym, I heard the term “future-proofing.” The **CEO of a large American private equity firm** , speaking at an exclusive annual lunch filled with heads of state and business leaders, revealed how lonely he felt supporting Trump in the early stages of his election campaign—implying that the election results now allowed his peers to say what they had long believed. “We were on the wrong track,” he said. “What’s going on is a sea change. It’s not to everyone’s taste. But the majority of the change reflects where the country is now. So, fasten your seatbelts.” On one public panel compiling early reflections on the Trump transition, the topic of the tech CEOs at the inauguration came up. If there was one word to describe it, said**geopolitical risk consultant Ian Bremmer** , it would be “complicity.” “If we saw these scenes in India, we would say they were a kleptocracy,” he said. “But because it’s the United States, we’re saying it’s the new way of doing things.” Speaking of India, a **media leader from that country** reflected that the world was about to see the “Modi-fication of America,” referring to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In other words, Americans had voted for a favorable business environment at the cost of weakened press freedoms, minority rights, and democracy.  
  
**WAR AGAINST WOKE** If it weren’t for Trump, I think more headlines would have been focused on **Argentine President Javier Milei**. In front of a packed Congress Hall—the biggest of the stages at Davos—Milei excoriated “the absolute global hegemony of the woke left in politics and educational institutions … even in forums like Davos” and celebrated how that old establishment had now begun to crumble. It’s worth reading the full text of his speech. But beyond his case against what he called “sickly wokeism,” I was struck by how Milei was advocating the rest of the world to follow Argentina’s lead in “going back to libertarianism.” Sure, Argentina’s economic situation was dire and in need of shock therapy—with a long-suffering population willing to try out absolutely anything. But could Milei’s medicine really work in, say, France or Bangladesh? I’d like to interrogate that some more. Sadly, Milei didn’t take questions. **GRAB BAG** Speak to any one of the 3,000 official Davos attendees, and you’ll get 3,000 different takes on “the mood.” Attendees gravitate toward sessions that they are already interested in and walk out believing the things that they are predisposed to believe. As more than one commentator has now pointed out, Davos is infamous for generating flawed predictions.  
---  
| | 

  * Iran continues to signal that it is open for talks with the Trump administration, as **Vice President Mohammad Javad Zarif** made clear in an onstage interview with **CNN’s Fareed Zakaria**.
  * At one lunch, I found myself seated next to **the leaders of Iraq and Armenia**. Instead of letting me quiz them, they had a question for me: Does America care about our problems?
  * I’m surprised at myself for getting this far into my reflections without mentioning China. Beijing’s delegation was led by **Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang** , who made a speech that could have been made by an American or European leader a decade ago, calling for multilateralism and cautioning against a zero-sum approach to global trade. (Read it here.)
  * Beyond geopolitics, artificial intelligence and its implications for jobs, energy, and disinformation were predictably hot topics of discussion.
  * I was heartened to see a focus on health outcomes and productive discussions centered on a moonshot for cancer. (Disclosure: I facilitated one such discussion with a **major pharmaceutical company CEO** who recognizes that the Trump administration may not be cooperative on vaccines but may well show an interest in bettering outcomes for noncommunicable diseases.)
  * CEOs and world leaders alike seem braced for a roller-coaster year (as our new print cover illustrates). There’s a general acknowledgment that there is a backlash against not only globalization but also the U.S.-led world order, with all its rules and multilateral institutions.
  * But while both left and right can agree that the old ideas are failing, there’s little consensus on a way forward. There’s a dearth of compelling new theories. Perhaps that’s why businesses seem keen to enjoy a short-term sugar-high of deregulation, tax cuts, and Trump’s call for lower interest rates and cheap money. But in the longer term, do the numbers add up?
  * Milei’s call to “make the West great again” may sound appealing until one poses that old query that all editors love: “OK, but how?”

  
---  
I’ll stop there. If you’re reading this, you are part of FP’s highest tier of membership, and we’re grateful for your support. Hit reply and send me back some feedback on this note. We’ll keep them coming on different topics and from other summits that the FP team frequents.Have a great start to your 2025!As ever,  
Ravi Agrawal  
Editor in chief  
---  
| |   
---  
| 

# Give a gift (on us)   
  
---  
stephen, have you used your free gift benefit? Every year, Insiders can give a free 6-month gift subscription. Share FP's insights with a friend or colleague today.   
---  
CONTACT US  
---  
|   
---  
| | | | | |   
---|---|---|---  
  
| |  Want to receive FP newsletters? Manage your FP newsletter preferences.  
---  
MANAGE YOUR EMAIL PREFERENCES  |  VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY  |  UNSUBSCRIBE   
---  
Reach the right online audience with us.  
---  
_Foreign Policy_ is a division of Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2023 Graham Digital Holding Company LLC. All rights reserved. Foreign Policy, 655 15th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20005.  
---