The 56th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (#WEF26) convened nearly 3,000 leaders from government, business, civil society and academia under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue,” against the most complex geopolitical backdrop seen in decades, primarily thanks to one man, making this year’s Davos the largest diplomatic stress test he has produced so far.
This year’s WEF meeting on January 19–23 welcomed a record 400 top political leaders, including nearly 65 heads of state and government, with a majority of G7 leaders present in Davos. Close to 830 of the world’s top CEOs and chairs, and almost 80 leading unicorns and technology pioneers were also in attendance. As described by the WEF itself, the meeting provided “an essential and leading platform for open exchange among leaders.” WEF also noted that the attendees “worked to find areas of agreement on the world’s most pressing challenges, from peace and security to technology, growth, people and the planet.”
But readers already know the truth, the disruption caused by U.S. President Donald Trump and his oversized and media-focused Davos entourage grabbed global headlines for almost an entire week, with geopolitical shockwaves guaranteed to continue challenging what is left of the existing world economic and political order for a sizeable period yet to be seen. And Trump understands he has been receiving increasing criticism for focusing heavily on foreign affairs instead of working to better the situation for average citizens back home. The reason is simple, in foreign affairs, Trump can grab the headlines with a single Truth Social post or a few orders to unquestioning subordinates in his chain of command or in private power structures he has set up. On the other hand, fixing America requires real work, as demonstrated by the current conflagrations in Minneapolis.
Greenland and Arctic security
The main headline grabber this year was Trump’s posture on the issue of Arctic security (Greenland) and his threatened retaliatory tariffs against those in Europe who resisted his efforts. Even after he removed the threat of the use of military force to obtain Greenland during his main address on Trump’s first day at the WEF (January 21), tension with European leaders — mostly sidelined and angry — and other allies remained high until actual negotiations started.
Since returning to office in 2025, Trump’s Greenland rhetoric had triggered strong European and Danish opposition: Denmark insisted repeatedly that Greenland was not for sale, and Greenland’s own leadership and people rejected all U.S. claims. But for much of 2025 other Trump-generated disruptions kept the Greenland off the front pages. As Trump increased pressure on Denmark late in 2025, most observers were still convinced Trump’s main focus was actually on other open foreign policy issues, such as Ukraine, Gaza or Venezuela and that Greenland was not a priority.
There appeared to be some room for diplomacy, although the space was tight, and many observers doubted Trump had done the required math or any historical analysis on Greenland’s mineral wealth or strategic value, considering the massive U.S. military withdrawals from facilities in Greenland since the Cold War ended.
In addition, American public interest in acquiring Greenland was close to zero (limited national polling had indicated support numbers around five percent) and congressional enthusiasm for tough action against NATO allies was accordingly low. Media reports in the U.S. picked up faint traces of actual congressional resistance to Trump’s master plan as such, and Wall Street provided Trump with zero encouragement for the new round of transatlantic trade uncertainty that he was generating with threatened tariffs that he had posted were set to take effect on February 1.
Talks at the Foreign Minister level in Washington with Danish and Greenland officials in early January had gone nowhere, channeling Trump back into his true element, making public threats via his Truth Social outlet, while upsetting markets as well.
These factors, plus Trump’s Davos address earlier in the day (January 21), set the scene for the NATO Arctic deal which emerged after the Davos meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that evening, an individual who has proven himself flexible enough to work closely with Trump over the past year.
Leaving the meeting, Trump said he had agreed with on a framework that would involve continued U.S. engagement and access in the Arctic, which he framed as beneficial for allied defense. Trump has become famous for an entire year of “framework deals” which allow him to claim success and leave essential details to be resolved at the technical level later, which sometimes do not work out. But why worry?
“We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that “based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect.” He described the arrangement as a “work in progress,” saying the “deal is going to be put out soon” and that it “gets us everything we wanted, including real national security.”
In terms of details, all that is known is that this was not a transfer of sovereignty or a sale of Greenland. Denmark and NATO leaders made clear that sovereignty remains with Greenland and Denmark, while numerous analysts, speculating blindly, have argued that something like “sovereign military base” territories or zones managed by NATO could be key elements in the package. That could leave many months of work for diplomats and defense ministry lawyers. And large questions remain about critical mineral access rights which have always been open to foreign investors. Will access be denied to hostile powers?
Ukraine ceasefire still elusive
Davos helped restart and coordinate diplomatic channels — particularly through U.S., Ukrainian, and Russian engagement — even though no ceasefire or territorial settlement was achieved. Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on January 22 to iron out the details of the revised allied peace proposal going to Moscow and U.S. security guarantees. As he has done several times before, Trump claimed that a final agreement could be close, and Zelenskyy noted he believed only one major issue remains unresolved (territory).
From Davos, Trump dispatched his personal non-State Department emissaries, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, first to Moscow with the new proposals and then to Abu Dhabi for additional discussions in a trilateral format. No breakthroughs have been reported so far.
Zelenskyy had not intended to speak at Davos this year due to the wartime electric power crisis at home, but when he did make remarks, he was directly critical of what he saw as Europe’s inaction and weakness as well as a fondness for talk and future planning instead of immediate action.
Zelenskyy announced he had received commitments for additional air defense systems in his Davos meetings, without sharing details. Ukraine also held meetings with global corporate leaders and investment actors, an important precursor to reconstruction financing and economic recovery.
Board of Peace: A Security Council clone or a Trump enterprise?
The Board of Peace is a newly created international organization formally launched by U.S. President Donald Trump at a carefully staged signing ceremony in Davos. While it started as part of Trump’s 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip, backed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in late 2025 to help supervise ceasefire implementation, administrative transition and reconstruction in Gaza, by the time of the Davos signing, the charter no longer explicitly mentions Gaza, reflecting Trump’s attempt to carve out a broader global role for his new grouping.
Trump has now positioned it as a global peace and conflict-resolution body with broad remit — far beyond its original Gaza focus — claiming it could “do pretty much whatever we want to do.” The organization’s mission is described as promoting stability, governance, and long-lasting peace in regions affected or threatened by conflict.
Much remains unclear at this point, especially if Trump intends his new Board to be a rival of the United Nations, though he has publicly said it would work “in conjunction with the United Nations.”
Trump chairs the Board and plays a central role in inviting members and shaping its direction. The executive leadership includes several prominent figures invited or selected by Trump and already known from the time of the Gaza ceasefire, such as: Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Tony Blair (former UK Prime Minister) and Jared Kushner.
Invitations have been sent to over 50 nations for participation but around 20 signed the charter at Davos. Several traditional U.S. allies (like many Western European countries) have declined or been non-committal and the invitation to Canada was formally withdrawn by Trump.
A number of countries withdrew or refused invitations after reservations about structure, financing, or political motives. Others likely signed up out of fear of offending President Trump. Elon Musk and other commentators have mocked the initiative’s name and timing while in Davos, highlighting skepticism even beyond geopolitics.
Many questions remain to be answered as the Board takes shape. One thing is certain, whenever the Democrats return to the White House, the formal U.S. role and funding will be sharply reduced or possibly terminated. Accordingly, the Board’s staying power is not guaranteed, unless privately funded, something Trump is already aiming for. This could eventually turn the Board into a foundation/think tank or job center for those who signed up this year and later lost elections in their home countries, and the Board’s legitimacy in Washington after Trump departs will be continually under the microscope.
Congressional hearings soon would make sense to get details, not just short talking points, on Trump’s long term plans.
Afghanistan — Coalition veterans deserve respect
On January 22 in a Fox News interview related to his trip, President Trump said that U.S. allies stayed “a little off the front lines” in the conflict and claimed he was not sure NATO “would be there” if the U.S. needed it. These remarks sparked international outrage as the UK and other nations joined the U.S. in Afghanistan after NATO’s collective security clause was invoked following the 9/11 attacks, and about a thousand coalition troops died in the fighting along with their U.S. allies who suffered a total of 2641 losses.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has described Trump’s remarks about British troops in Afghanistan as “insulting and frankly appalling.” Starmer said if he himself had “misspoken in that way,” he would “certainly apologize.”
In view of furious allied reaction to the interview, Trump did walk back his comments posting about the bravery of allied troops in Afghanistan on January 24. This fuzzy form of apology was more than many observers had dared to hope for and helped to defuse the media element of the crisis almost immediately.
Do not forget global growth and cooperation
Leaders in Davos from the IMF, ECB, WTO, and others emphasized that global growth is holding up despite political uncertainty, especially questions related to U.S. trade policy. They also warned that growth alone is not enough to solve debt burdens, inequality, and labor market disruptions, in itself not major new messages.
In addition, Artificial Intelligence (AI) was everywhere at Davos; not just as an idea but as a central economic factor reshaping labor, trade, investment flows, and supply chains. Many WEF panels and private accords pointed to scaling AI responsibly, preparing workers, and channeling tech investment into economic productivity. The WEF and corporate partners pledged to support 20 million AI-related jobs by 2030, with initiatives like SmartStart USA targeting future workforce skills.
On energy and climate issues, there was a growing consensus among scientific and economic voices that fossil fuels have no long-term future, and global energy investment must shift toward renewables. However, political divides remain — especially highlighted by conflicting Trump administration signals on energy policy versus clean tech ambitions globally, including from companies based in the United States.
