ReportWire

Tag: davos

  • At Davos 2026, the New A.I. Race Is About Execution

    [ad_1]

    Davos 2026 revealed a clear pivot: as A.I. enters its infrastructure phase, competitive advantage hinges on governance, integration and execution. Photo by Fabrice Coffrini / AFP via Getty Images

    At this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, artificial intelligence was no longer framed as an emerging technology. It was treated as infrastructure. Across panels, private dinners and side conversations, the debate had clearly shifted: the question is not whether A.I. will transform economies and institutions, but who can operationalize it at scale under tightening geopolitical and social constraints.

    Polished talking points and transactional networking were expected. Instead, the prevailing tone was unusually open and collaborative. Leaders across industry, government and investment circles engaged in candid discussions about what it actually takes to build, deploy and govern A.I. systems in the real world. 

    From breakthroughs to infrastructure

    In prior years, A.I. at Davos was often positioned as a horizon technology or a promising experiment. This year, leaders spoke about it the way they talk about energy grids or the internet: as a foundational capability that must be embedded across operations. In closed-door sessions and enterprise-focused discussions, including an Emerging Tech breakfast hosted by BCG, A.I. was consistently framed as something organizations must build into their core operating model, not test at the margins.

    Enterprise leaders stressed that A.I. can no longer live in pilots or innovation labs. It is becoming a core operating layer, reshaping workflows, governance structures and executive accountability. One panelist put it bluntly: in the future, there may not be Chief A.I. Officers, because every Chief Operating Officer will effectively be responsible for A.I. The real work now is redesigning roles, incentives and processes around systems that are always on and deeply embedded, rather than treating A.I. as a bolt-on feature.

    The rise of agentic systems

    Another notable shift was the focus on agentic A.I. systems. Instead of tools that merely assist human work, these systems are designed to plan, decide and act across entire workflows. In practical terms, that means A.I. that does more than answer questions: it can determine next steps, call other tools or services and close the loop on tasks.

    This evolution is forcing a rethink of traditional software-as-a-service models. Many founders and executives spoke about rebuilding products as A.I.-native platforms that actively run processes, rather than software that passively supports human operators. As these systems take on greater autonomy, questions of liability, oversight and human intervention are moving from the margins of product design to the center of both enterprise architecture and regulation.

    Workforce pressure and the hollowing of entry-level work

    Concerns about labor displacement were far less theoretical than in previous years. Executives spoke openly about hiring freezes and the quiet erosion of traditional entry-level roles. Routine analysis, reporting and coordination work—the tasks that used to anchor junior jobs—is precisely where A.I. systems are advancing fastest. 

    In response, reskilling is shifting from talking point to strategy. Rather than assuming A.I. capability can be “hired in,” organizations are building structured pathways to retrain existing employees into A.I.-augmented roles. A parallel trend is intrapreneurship: with experimentation costs lowered by A.I., companies are encouraging employees to propose pilots and launch internal ventures, channeling entrepreneurial energy inward instead of losing it to startups.

    Governing speed, not stopping it

    Despite the urgency to deploy A.I., some of the most grounded conversations in Davos centered on governance. These were not abstract ethics debates, but rather operational discussions about how to move quickly without creating unacceptable legal, reputational or societal risks.

    The emerging consensus has formed around what many described as “controlled speed”: rapid iteration paired with mechanisms that make systems observable and correctable in real time. Leaders described embedding governance directly into workflows through auditability, data controls, red teaming, human-in-the-loop checkpoints and clear ownership for A.I. outcomes. 

    In policy-facing sessions, including gatherings of world leaders, similar themes surfaced around embedding accountability into A.I. deployments at scale, rather than trying to slow progress from the outside.

    A.I. as a geopolitical asset and the rise of sovereign A.I.

    One of the clearest through-lines was the link between A.I. and geopolitical power. At a TCP House panel, Ray Dalio captured a widely shared view: whoever wins the technology race will win the geopolitical race. Across Davos, speakers framed A.I. capability as a determinant of national influence, economic resilience and security.

    This framing is driving a wave of sovereign A.I. initiatives. Governments are investing in domestic data centers, local model training and tighter control over critical infrastructure to reduce strategic dependency. The goal is not isolation so much as resilience, a balance between domestic capability and selective global partnerships. At the Semafor CEO Signal Exchange, for instance, Google’s Ruth Porat warned of the risk of an emerging A.I. power vacuum if the United States fails to move quickly enough, creating space for competitors to set the terms of the next era.

    For enterprises, these dynamics translate into concrete decisions around data residency, model dependency and vendor concentration in a more multipolar world.

    Diverging regional strategies

    Regional differences in A.I. strategy were hard to miss. Europe’s regulatory-first approach is shaping global norms, but many participants voiced concern that it may constrain commercial leadership. Europe is becoming a reference point for risk mitigation and rights protection, even as questions persist about whether it can also serve as the primary engine of A.I.-driven growth.

    By contrast, the United States and parts of the Middle East are advancing aggressively through coordinated policy, capital investment and large-scale infrastructure build-outs. Discussions around semiconductors, satellites and cybersecurity reinforced how tightly A.I. deployment is now coupled with national resilience and defense considerations. Regions that move fastest on infrastructure and deployment are likely to set technical, regulatory and commercial defaults that others will eventually be forced to adopt.

    Domain-specific A.I., with biohealth in front

    While general-purpose models remain central, much of the energy in Davos was focused on domain-specific A.I. Healthcare, biotechnology, energy and agriculture stood out as sectors where A.I. promises enormous value alongside heightened risk. Biohealth, in particular, was central to discussions of drug discovery, diagnostics and clinical decision support.

    Across these domains, participants stressed that success depends on deep collaboration between engineers, domain experts and regulators. Transparency, verifiability and accountability were repeatedly described as prerequisites for A.I. systems that touch public safety, critical infrastructure or social trust. In one AgriTech-focused session, for example, speakers emphasized that A.I.’s role in food security hinges as much on governance and data integrity as on optimization.

    A human signal amid rapid change

    Beyond the technical themes, the tone of Davos 2026 was striking in its human-centric nature. Panel after panel emphasized deploying A.I. in the service of humanity, not just efficiency or profit. Many speakers pushed back against deterministic or doom-driven narratives, highlighting that humans still write the models, set the rules and decide what A.I. ultimately serves.

    An Oxford-style debate hosted by Cognizant and Constellation Research captured this spirit. Participants were divided into “Team Humanity” and “Team A.I.,” and the format was deliberately interactive, not about winning an argument, but about changing minds on humanity’s purpose in an A.I. age. That focus on agency and responsibility ran through both formal sessions and late-night conversations.

    Davos does not dictate the future of technology. It reflects what people with power and capital are already preparing for. This year, the signal was clear: A.I. has entered its infrastructure phase. Competitive advantage will come from how organizations govern it, integrate it into work, retrain their people and navigate sovereignty and dependency risks, not from who can demo the flashiest model.

    Amid the urgency, what stood out most was the human element of thoughtful, collaborative people trying to build something better. In a moment defined by rapid change, that may be the most important signal of all.

    At Davos 2026, the New A.I. Race Is About Execution

    [ad_2]

    Mark Minevich and Dr. Kathryn Wifvat

    Source link

  • Maybe the United States Can Be One of Mark Carney’s “Middle Powers”

    [ad_1]

    It may well have been a bargain worth making for countries such as Canada. But now, since the U.S. has decided to dispense with even the veneer of equality, and instead has committed itself to the principle that, as Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisers, put it recently, we inhabit a world that “is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” countries like Canada no longer get to make that bargain. They are told what to do, and tough if they don’t like it.

    So, as Carney explained, those middle countries had best learn to stick together, and to stand up in something like coördinated fashion to the bully, since as individual nations they are simply too vulnerable. “You cannot ‘live within the lie’ of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination,” he said. Instead, nations will need to engage in “risk management,” strengthening themselves against attack and building new, more provisional, alliances. Carney, for instance, signed new trade pacts in recent weeks not just with South American nations but also with China, allowing limited imports of E.V.s in return for reduced tariffs on canola oil. On such things will the world now turn, but, if countries decide to go it alone, they will eventually lose. “In a world of great-power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact,” Carney said.

    And what made his vision something more than Thucydidean realism was his reminder that these “middle powers” by and large still represent the core of values that America is now abandoning, and that they can build their unions at least in part on those shared ideas. Canada, he pointed out, “is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability.” (That last point is no small thing on a rapidly heating planet.) He added that, together, these nations “can build something better, stronger, more just.”

    One can fault Carney on how well he’s kept his own promises domestically. Last fall, one of his cabinet ministers, a former environment minister, resigned because the Prime Minister had cut a deal with the oil-patch province of Alberta to let it build new oil pipelines to the Pacific Coast for shipment to Asia. I find it hard to believe that Carney—who is, remember, an economist—really believes there will be a market for that crude. Just last week, Mitsubishi and Shell were reportedly looking into selling part of their stakes in big Canadian liquid-natural-gas projects, as the demand for solar power surges across Asia. My guess is that Carney may be trying to thwart Alberta’s separatist impulses—there is a campaign for a secession referendum later this year, one that Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been doing his best to encourage.

    But that’s internal politics. In the larger world, Canada is emerging as the most levelheaded player out there: far firmer than the United Kingdom, led by Keir Starmer, and less mercurial than France under Emmanuel Macron. Trump certainly realizes this. In his own Davos address, on Wednesday, in between mixing up Iceland and Greenland, he had a message for the Canadians: “I watched your Prime Minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. They should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

    What really bothers Trump, I think, is just the notion of a world order in which other countries decide to band together and to play by the rules, instead of letting themselves be picked apart by him. In Carney’s modest vision, there’s at least the hint of what could happen in the much hoped-for future where Trumpism ceases to be a major factor. There’s no guarantee, of course—a decade from now, a J. D. Vance or a Marco Rubio may still be throwing the nation’s diminishing weight around. But let’s at least pretend that, someday, reason will again prevail below the Forty-ninth Parallel.

    If that blessed day arrives, there will be no way that America can simply step back into its commanding role in the international order. For one thing, we’ve immeasurably strengthened China; for another, no one is ever going to forget that we were an unstable nation that elected an obvious idiot to be its leader. Which, in a way, would actually be O.K. We obviously no longer deserve world leadership, and it might be a relief to become something of a dependable middle power ourselves. By size and wealth we’ll always be large, and there will always be a domestic political market for American glory, but it’s at least possible to imagine many Americans deciding that we’d like to be a reliable part of something that we don’t run. Perhaps we, too, will decide to become a middling power, full of sensible citizens that care about things like health care and education, not things like territorial expansion. Maybe we could just be an oversized Belgium, hemming ourselves in with the same rules that we’ve applied to others. (Most Americans, I think, might take this deal—polling, for instance, shows that only nine per cent favor seizing Greenland.) Modesty might actually seem attractive, after the nerve-jangling, always-on-tenterhooks Trump years. No one has to think about Mark Carney around the clock, worried that he’s going to do something ugly. We could be a southerly Canada, a de-facto eleventh province. Wouldn’t that be calm? ♦

    [ad_2]

    Bill McKibben

    Source link

  • A.I.’s Data Center Rush Will Create Six-Figure Trade Jobs, Jensen Huang Predicts

    [ad_1]

    Jensen Huang speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos on Jan. 21, 2026. Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

    Much has been said about A.I.’s potential to replace jobs. But Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is more concerned about A.I. creating a labor shortage—at least in the short term. As tech companies race to build data centers across the U.S. and around the world, they will need tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians and construction workers to make it happen. “This is the largest infrastructure buildout in human history. That’s going to create a lot of jobs,” said Huang during an interview with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 21.

    New labor opportunities will be especially concentrated in the trades, where Huang claims pay has already nearly doubled. Those who help build semiconductor plants, computer factories and data centers will soon be making “six-figure salaries,” according to the executive.

    “Everyone should be able to make a great living,” said Huang. “You don’t need a Ph.D. in computer science to do so.”

    The median annual pay for electricians in 2024 was around $62,000, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was roughly $46,000 for construction laborers and nearly $63,000 for plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters. Growth for all three professions from 2024 to 2034 is expected to outpace the average occupational growth rate of 3 percent, with demand for electricians in particular surging. The field is projected to expand by 9 percent over the next decade, with about 81,000 openings projected annually on average.

    The U.S. is already seeing a “significant boom” in these areas, according to Huang—so much so that it has led to a “great shortage” in tradecraft roles. The A.I. boom is expected to worsen a worker deficit the industry was already facing. In December 2022, some 490,000 construction positions went unfilled, according to a McKinsey report, the highest level recorded this century.

    Huang isn’t the only CEO who believes A.I. will be a boon for trade jobs. Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, described vocational skills as “very valuable, if not irreplaceable,” while speaking in Davos earlier this week. Ford CEO Jim Farley has made similar arguments on behalf of the blue-collar community, saying the country does not yet have a large enough workforce to support its data center ambitions. “I think the intent is there, but there’s nothing to backfill the ambition,” he told Axios in August.

    The opportunity for A.I.-driven manual labor jobs won’t be limited to the U.S., Huang added, but will extend around the world as data center construction accelerates. “There is not one country in the world I can imagine where you [don’t] need to have A.I. as part of your infrastructure.”

    A.I.’s Data Center Rush Will Create Six-Figure Trade Jobs, Jensen Huang Predicts

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • It’s Time to Talk About Donald Trump’s Logorrhea

    [ad_1]

    And I’m not just referring to the week’s crisis over Greenland and the future of the NATO alliance, a crisis which began and (sort of) ended with many words being uttered by Trump about his “psychological” need to own the vast and strategically located Danish territory. Consider, for example, Trump’s “Board of Peace,” which he débuted before leaving Davos on Thursday morning. In Trump 1.0, perhaps this would have been no more than one of his Twitter controversies, in which he posted some crazy graphic of himself leading a rump group of world powers to overthrow the United Nations as the new permanent chairman of the global board of directors. In Trump 2.0, his alternate reality is not just a social-media post or the subject of an over-my-dead-body fight with his latest panicked national security adviser but an in-person photo op featuring the President, a real-life logo copied from the U.N.’s, and a random assortment of world leaders who were willing to buy a seat on Trump’s committee for a cool billion dollars. (Belarus and Qatar, yes; Britain, France, Germany, and every other major U.S. ally in Europe, no.) I highly recommend watching the fully live-streamed event, a show one might caption “Donald Trump and his pretend League of (Lesser) Superheroes, with himself as a bizarro Superman in charge of the world.”

    My favorite moment was when—after bragging about how “everybody wants to be a part of” the board that every other major world leader, with the possible exception of the war-mongering pariah Vladimir Putin, refused to join—he claimed that the group he himself had dreamed up was some distinguished independent organization that had solicited his chairmanship. “I was very honored when they asked me to do it,” he said. For all I know, he believed it.

    Perhaps just as revealing, when Trump reached the fulsome self-praise section of his speech, he explained that he was such an incredible peacemaker that he had even managed to end wars in places where he had not known they were happening. Imagine admitting this about yourself. Another quote from “The Magic Mountain” sprang to mind: “I know I am talking nonsense, but I’d rather go rambling on. . . .”

    A decade into the Trump era, Americans are more or less used to this manic political performance art, proof, if we still needed it, that millions of our fellow-citizens are all right with having a clearly disturbed leader who cannot control what he says. (Although, to be fair, even some partisan Republicans are starting to worry that they could pay a serious price this fall for what the G.O.P. strategist Karl Rove, no fan of Trump’s, called Trump’s unnerving“rambling appearances” and “downward spiral” in his latest Wall Street Journal column, headlined “Is Trump Trying to Lose the Midterms?”)

    But the stunned reaction of so many Europeans to a week living in the full-on Trump talk cycle ought to remind us that there’s something to be said for the plainer interpretation of Trump’s out-of-control behavior, even if years of intensive exposure in the U.S. have inured us to it.

    “This is a wake-up call, a bigger one than we’ve ever had,” Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said.

    “The time has come to stand up against Trump,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and secretary-general of NATO, said.

    It was only a few days before his speech in Davos, on the eve of his visit to Switzerland, that Trump was revealed to have sent a text to the Prime Minister of Norway, complaining that, because Norway had denied him the Nobel Peace Prize, he was under no obligation to proceed peacefully in his desire to take over Greenland. The message, surely a first in diplomatic annals, began: “Dear Jonas, Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

    Lars-Christian Brask, a deputy speaker of the Danish parliament, no doubt spoke for many in Europe when he responded to this evidence of Trump’s “mad and erratic behavior” by asking on television whether the President was still capable of running the United States.

    What struck me was how calm, reasonable, and puzzled Brask’s tone was as he said it. But it’s going to be a long three more years; there’s almost certainly going to be a lot of shouting before this is all over. How many polite ways, after all, are there to ask whether the President of the United States has lost his mind? ♦

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link

  • Elon Musk makes the case for why his $2.2 trillion tech empire is the only way to save humanity as the only intelligent life in the universe | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Despite Elon Musk’s multiple proclamations that he is an alien—something he reiterated on the stage of the World Economic Forum on Thursday—the billionaire SpaceX CEO thinks it’s very unlikely there is intelligent life beyond Earth.

    In a conversation in Davos, Switzerland, with BlackRock CEO and World Economic Forum interim chair Larry Fink, Musk said this belief is the framework of his technology ventures and  $600 billion of wealth. Because there’s a small likelihood of life outside of Earth, Musk said the project of preserving humanity becomes more urgent.

    I’m often asked, ‘Are there aliens among us?’ And I’ll say that I am one. They don’t believe me,” Musk said, unclear if he was joking or what particular point he was trying to make by asserting his alienness. 

    “Or you’re from the future,” Fink responded, alluding to previous times Musk has called himself a 3,000-year-old time-travelling vampire.

    “The bottom line is, I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare and it might only be us,” Musk added. “And if that’s the case, then we need to do everything possible to ensure that the light of consciousness is not extinguished.”

    Musk’s vision of protecting humanity manifested more than a decade ago, when he founded OpenAI alongside Sam Altman in 2015 with the hopes of addressing the existential risks and safety concerns associated with the budding technology. He told Fink that Tesla and SpaceX, worth $1.4 trillion and $800 billion, respectively, were an extension of this belief, with the purpose not only to create sustainable technology, but “sustainable abundance.”

    Musk’s vision for the future of humanity

    Musk reiterated his vision of an abundance of humanoid robotics that would make work optional, claiming technology would ease the burden of humans to have jobs or even have money.

    “With robotics and AI, this is really the path to abundance for all,” Musk said. “People often talk about solving global poverty, or essentially, how do we make everyone have a very high standard of living? I think the only way to do this is AI and robotics.”

    The billionaire describes a world with billions of robots—which would outnumber humans—and would serve to complete tasks including caring for children and elderly parents. He predicted that there would be functional humanoid robot technology by the end of the year, and said he expected those robots to be retail available in the next couple of years. 

    To be sure, Tesla’s own Optimus robots have hit snags, continuously falling behind production schedule, with Musk saying as recently as Tuesday that manufacturing for the bots, as well as the Tesla Cybercab, would be “agonizingly slow” before production eventually ramped up.

    Musk has previously said humans would be able to sustain themselves without work through a universal basic income, but did not provide details on the political steps needed to provide that income to humans.

    These missions to preserve humanity extend beyond earth. Musk has described his goals as “Mars-shot,” alluding to his hopes to put human life on Mars, efforts he has even touched on in Tesla’s financial filings. The CEO has previously said he envisions Mars as an insurance policy for the future of humanity, wanting to use it as a jumping off point to expand resources to explore human consciousness.

    “I’ve been asked a few times like, ‘Do I want to die on Mars?’” Musk said on Thursday. “And I’m like, ‘Yes, but just not on impact.’”

    The Fermi Paradox, according to Musk

    Musk’s philosophy regarding extraterrestrial life has previously engaged with the Fermi Paradox, a theory positing that there’s both a high change of intelligent life outside of earth—and scant evidence to prove it.

    In 1950, Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, an architect of the atom bomb, asked a question in a conversation with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico: “Where is everybody?”

    The three-word inquiry launched a 1963 paper by American astronomer Carl Sagan and proliferated in the scientific community, and the popularized Fermi Paradox soon emerged.

    Musk said in an X post in 2023 that humans “are the only tiny candle of consciousness in an abyss of darkness.”

    “The scariest answer to the Fermi Paradox is that there are no aliens at all,” he said.

    In 2022, Musk even commissioned a sculpture depicting the “Fermi Great Filter,” a potential resolution to the Fermi Paradox hypothesizing that intelligent life must face and overcome a series of challenges, including the Great Filter which only few evolved species are able to overcome. The statue shows a giant fork with two diverging paths, indicating the choices a civilization must make to survive: a fork in the road, a motive Musk has oft drawn on. 

    Critiques of Musk’s philosophy

    The high-stakes nature associated with Musk’s philosophy has drawn concern, with some arguing this effort to preserve humanity is actually threatening it. Rebecca Charbonneau, a historian at the American Institute of Physics, had a different interpretation of Musk’s philosophy as it pertained to work. In a piece published in Scientific American in February 2025, Charbonneau said Musk’s beliefs around preserving humanity reflected a bigger ideology in the world of tech. 

    Roots in vestiges of Cold War anxieties (the same time period in which the Fermi Paradox emerged), tech leaders often saw a false binary of either limitless prosperity or complete societal collapse, Charbonneau argued. As a result, many in the field, including Musk, are willing to go to extreme measures in the name of avoiding what they perceive as humanity’s demise. 

    “Proponents of this survivalist mindset see it as justifying particular programs of technological escalation at any cost, framing the future as a desperate race against catastrophe rather than a space for multiple thriving possibilities,” Charbonneau wrote.

    She noted that Musk’s “Fork in the Road,” a strategy he employed both in culling staff at X and in the federal government as de facto leader of DOGE, was reflective of this. Musk called DOGE the “chainsaw of bureaucracy,” promising to shave $2 trillion in federal spending. Instead, the advisory eliminated about $150 billion in spending through headcount reductions and contract cancellations. Federal workers said the cuts made their jobs harder, eliminating valuable resources that resulted in their jobs taking longer, with the quality of the government’s work suffering.

    Charbonneau argued Musk’s philosophy eliminates opportunities for nuance, making institutions—and humanity—vulnerable to often extreme responses to delicate situations.

    “By framing humanity’s challenges as simple engineering problems rather than complex systemic ones, technologists position themselves as decisive architects of our future, crafting grand visions that sidestep the messier, necessary work of social, political and collaborative change,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Sasha Rogelberg

    Source link

  • What to know about Trump’s “Board of Peace” as world leaders sign founding charter in Davos

    [ad_1]

    President Trump led a signing ceremony for the founding charter of his “Board of Peace” on Thursday in Davos, Switzerland, as questions lingered over the body’s operations and scope months after it was announced as part of the administration’s peace plan for Gaza.

    The president hinted Thursday at wider ambitions for the board, beyond the war-torn Palestinian territory, and said repeatedly that the board would work with the United Nations, though he offered little detail.

    “I think we can spread out to other things as we succeed with Gaza,” Mr. Trump said. “Once the board is formed we can do pretty much whatever we want to do … and we’re going to do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”

    The board’s formation has faced headwinds from U.S. allies, many of which have yet to commit to participation. 

    Here’s what to know. 

    When was the Board of Peace created and why?

    The Board of Peace was first announced in September as a key component of the Trump administration’s 20-point plan for long-term peace in Gaza and the broader Middle East. It was described in that plan as “a new international transitional body” that would “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program … and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”

    “This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment,” it said.

    The White House said in a statement last week that the Board of Peace would play an essential role in fulfilling all 20 points of the peace plan, “providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, and ensuring accountability as Gaza transitions from conflict to peace and development.”

    Who is leading the Board of Peace and overseeing it?

    The Board of Peace is chaired by President Trump, who can hold that position until he resigns from it, according to a U.S. official.

    According to the White House, the Board of Peace has an appointed “founding Executive Board” comprised of: 

    • Secretary of State Marco Rubio
    • U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff
    • President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner
    • Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair
    • Billionaire financier Marc Rowan
    • World Bank Group president Ajay Banga
    • National security adviser Robert Gabriel

    The White House says a separate group called the “Gaza Executive Board” will “help support effective governance and the delivery of best-in-class services that advance peace, stability, and prosperity for the people of Gaza.” That group is comprised of:

    • U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff
    • President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner
    • Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan
    • Ali Al-Thawadi, strategic affairs minister in Qatari prime minister’s office
    • Egyptian intelligence chief General Hassan Rashad
    • Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair
    • Billionaire financier Marc Rowan
    • UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy
    • Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov
    • Israeli businessman Yakir Gabay
    • Sigrid Kaag, Dutch former deputy prime minister and ex-UN envoy

    Senior advisers to the board who are tasked with leading day-to-day operations are listed as:

    • Aryeh Lightstone 
    • Josh Gruenbaum

    Who is invited to the Board of Peace?

    CBS News confirmed that more than 50 countries were invited to join as of Jan. 21.

    Among them is Russia, despite its continued assault on Ukraine and the Trump administration’s statement that the country poses such a threat to national security that the U.S. must acquire Greenland to counter it.

    Mr. Trump said he sent an invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said his country was still consulting with Russia’s “strategic partners” before making a decision on whether to commit to the peace board, The Associated Press reported Thursday.

    Belarus, which has provided material support to Russia during its invasion of Ukraine, was also invited and its president, Aleksandr Lukashenko, accepted.

    It isn’t clear what criteria the White House is using to decide which countries are being invited to join.

    Who has joined the Board of Peace and who has declined?

    The White House shared a list of participants ahead of the charter signing ceremony on Thursday, saying that in addition to the U.S., the following nations were taking part:

    • Bahrain
    • Morocco
    • Argentina
    • Armenia
    • Azerbaijan
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Egypt
    • Hungary
    • Indonesia
    • Jordan
    • Kazakhstan
    • Kosovo
    • Mongolia
    • Pakistan
    • Paraguay
    • Qatar
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Turkey
    • United Arab Emirates
    • Uzbekistan

    Belgium, however, said Thursday it had not signed the charter.

    “This announcement is incorrect,” Maxime Prévot, deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, said. “We wish for a common and coordinated European response. As many European countries, we have reservations to the proposal.”

    Israel and Canada were among the nations that previously announced they were accepting Mr. Trump’s invitation to join, although they did not appear on the White House list on Thursday. 

    None of the U.S.’ European allies had signed onto the board as of Thursday, with many voicing concern over Mr. Trump’s invitations to Putin and Lukashenko. 

    Britain declined to sign onto the peace board for now, U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said.

    “We won’t be one of the signatories today,” Cooper told the BBC Thursday. “Because this is about a legal treaty that raises much broader issues, and we do also have concerns about President Putin being part of something which is talking about peace, when we have still not seen any signs from Putin that there will be a commitment to peace in Ukraine.”

    Norway and Sweden said Wednesday they were holding off, at least for now, due to concerns about the terms for joining. 

    A source familiar with the matter told CBS News earlier this week that France intended to decline due to concerns that the Board of Peace charter goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises major issues, particularly regarding respect for the principles and structure of the United Nations.

    In response, Mr. Trump said Monday night he would impose 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne if they did not join the Board of Peace. The White House has not responded to several inquiries as to whether or not the president was joking. 

    A French official said they have taken note of Mr. Trump’s statements and called the use of tariff threats to influence France’s foreign policy unacceptable and ineffective. 

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the board a work in progress, indicating an expectation by the Trump administration that membership would rise.

    “Many others who are going to join, you know, others either are not in town today or they have to go through some procedure internally in their own countries, in their own country, because of constitutional limitations, but others will join,” Rubio said in Davos on Thursday.

    Is the Board of Peace intended to replace the United Nations?

    President Trump said Thursday that the board would be committed to ensuring Gaza’s demilitarization, and hinted at wider ambitions for the group going forward.

    He said the board would work “coupled with the United Nations” to create a “safer future for the world, unfolding before your eyes,” adding that the board would help to “end decades of suffering.”

    The president also said the board can do “pretty much whatever we want to do” once it is formed, and that “we’re going to do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”

    Earlier this week, Mr. Trump said the Board of Peace “might” replace the world’s primary global body. 

    “I mean, the U.N. just hasn’t been very helpful. I’m a big fan of the U.N. potential. But it has never lived up to its potential,” he said in a more than 90-minute press conference at the White House on Tuesday, Jan. 20. 

    But he added, “I believe you’ve got to let the U.N. continue because the potential is so great.”

    In November, the United Nations passed a Security Council resolution that approved a “Board of Peace,” but with a focus limited only to Gaza.

    The resolution welcomed the establishment of a Board of Peace “as a transitional administration with international legal personality” that would set the framework and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza. 

    The U.N. resolution more broadly endorsed the Trump administration’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, and authorized countries working with the Board of Peace to establish a stabilization force inside the Palestinian territory.

    Is a financial contribution required to join?

    A U.S. official confirmed a Bloomberg report that countries can contribute $1 billion to the Board of Peace to become permanent members instead of having a three-year membership. The official also said it isn’t a requirement to contribute to become a member. 

    The official told CBS News that any contributions will be used to rebuild Gaza and said “virtually every dollar” raised will be spent on the board’s mandate. There will be no “exorbitant salaries” or “administrative bloat,” the official said.

    When it comes to financial disbursements and cash management, the board “will implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms,” and funds will sit only in approved accounts at reputable banks, according to a U.S. official. 

    Emma Nicholson and

    Camilla Schick

    contributed to this report.

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Davos’ Evolving Take On Cannabis

    [ad_1]

    Davos’ Evolving Take On Cannabis reveals how global leaders now view regulation, investment, and public health.

    For decades, the annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland has been shorthand for elite consensus building — a place where global leaders discuss finance, geopolitics, climate change, and the future of work. This year has been one of the most interesting and volatile conference, but what has been Davos’ evolving take on cannabis? The green plant was not always welcome in the conversation. In fact, its early mentions at Davos landed with a bang, provoking raised eyebrows and quiet skepticism among policymakers and corporate executives. Today, the tone has evolved significantly, reflecting how cannabis has moved from taboo to a legitimate economic, public health, and regulatory topic on the world stage.

    RELATED: What The Polymarket Says About Cannabis Rescheduling And More

    When cannabis first entered the Davos conversation in the mid-to-late 2010s, it did so largely as a disruptive novelty. Panels and side events framed it as an emerging social experiment driven by legalization in Canada and a growing number of U.S. states. Early discussions focused on risk: youth access, impaired driving, and the fear legalization could undermine public health. At the time, cannabis was often grouped with broader debates on addiction, illicit trade, and law enforcement rather than innovation or wellness.

    The initial shock value, however, opened the door to deeper analysis. As legalization expanded and early data emerged, Davos began to treat cannabis less as a moral issue and more as a policy and economic case study. By the early 2020s, cannabis had become a recurring topic in off-agenda sessions and reports connected to the World Economic Forum. The framing shifted toward regulation, harm reduction, and market design — familiar territory for an audience accustomed to managing complex global systems.

    One of the most notable evolutions in Davos’s stance has been the normalization of cannabis as an investable sector. Executives and investors now discuss cannabis alongside biotech, wellness, and consumer packaged goods. Conversations increasingly focus on supply chains, cross-border trade barriers, taxation, and the challenges of banking access. Rather than asking whether cannabis should exist, Davos discussions now center on how to regulate it effectively and equitably.

    Public health has also taken on a more nuanced role. Instead of blanket opposition, panels examine comparative risk — weighing cannabis against alcohol, opioids, and pharmaceuticals. This has led to more pragmatic discussions around medical cannabis access, pain management, mental health, and aging populations. The emphasis is not on promotion, but on evidence-based policy reducing harm while acknowledging consumer behavior.

    RELATED: Native American Tribes Find Economic Power In Alcohol, Cannabis And More

    Social equity has become another key pillar of the Davos cannabis conversation. As global leaders confront inequality and inclusion, cannabis legalization is increasingly discussed in the context of criminal justice reform, economic opportunity, and repairing harms from decades of prohibition. This aligns with Davos’s broader focus on stakeholder capitalism and inclusive growth.

    Today, cannabis at Davos is no longer a headline-grabbing novelty. It is a mature, if still evolving, topic woven into conversations about global markets, health systems, and governance. What started with a bang has settled into something far more consequential: a recognition cannabis policy is not a fringe issue, but a real-world test of how societies manage change, balance risk, and adapt to shifting cultural norms.

    [ad_2]

    Anthony Washington

    Source link

  • Trump touts policies aimed at promoting homeownership in Davos speech

    [ad_1]

    President Trump said in a speech in Davos, Switzerland, that he will promote homeownership in the U.S. by pushing for lower mortgage rates, restricting institutional investors from hoarding residential real estate and capping credit card costs.

    Speaking at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, Mr. Trump described homeownership as “a symbol of health and vigor,” while touting his executive order this week aimed at deterring Wall Street firms from competing with Americans for homes. 

    Yet he stopped short of providing details of how such a ban would work, and housing experts said such measures fail to address some of the key drivers behind rising home prices. 

    “It’s just not fair”

    In his speech at the annual gathering of world leaders, policymakers and business figures, Mr. Trump blamed institutional investors for driving up home prices for Americans by purchasing hundreds of thousands of properties for investment purposes. x

    “Homes are built for people, not for corporations,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s just not fair to the public. They are not able to buy a house.”

    His proposed ban would restrict future purchases of single-family homes by major housing investors, such as hedge funds and real estate investment trusts, but would not force them to sell properties they already own. The plan would require approval by Congress before taking effect. 

    But Jina Yoon, chief alternative investment strategist at LPL Financial, noted that the proposal only applies to existing houses and excludes newly built homes, potentially allowing some firms to continue scooping up properties. 

    “This allows institutional investors to shift their capital to build-to-rent projects, which could actually accelerate more rental community development owned and managed by large institutional investors,” she said in an email. “And there are many more structural factors that drive home prices and affordability issues than the share of homes owned by institutional investors, such as chronic supply shortages, zoning constraints, income and mortgage costs.”

    Across the U.S., big investors account for roughly 1% of total single-family housing stock, according to an August analysis by researchers at the American Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Yet research from the Government Accountability Office shows that even modest levels of institutional investment in the local housing markets can drive up home prices, especially in communities with high concentrations of investor-owned properties.

    Shamus Roller, executive director of the nonprofit National Housing Law Project, said the plans released so far by the Trump administration to address home affordability fail to account for the complexities of the housing market. 

    “Given how big an issue this is across the country, it deserves more attention and thought than what has been provided,” he told CBS News.  

    Specifically, Roller highlighted the shortage of available homes for sale, saying that new U.S. tariffs on imported homebuilding materials have raised costs and that the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration has led to worker shortages among construction companies. 

    Analysts with Oxford Economics said that Mr. Trump’s fixes could, in fact, boost demand for homes, but appear to do little to boost supplies, which they say is essential to addressing the affordability problem. 

    “A persistent shortage of housing units is a key driver of elevated housing costs,” Nancy Vanden Houten, U.S. lead economist with Oxford, said in a report.

    Falling mortgage rates

    Mr. Trump on Wednesday said his policies for easing home prices are already bearing fruit, pointing to mortgage rates this month falling to a three-year low after he directed the federal government to buy $200 billion worth of mortgage securities.

    The president also said he could take other steps to reduce the cost of home loans, but added that he doesn’t plan to do so because he wants to protect existing homeowners. 

    “If I wanted to really crush the housing market, I could do that so fast people would buy houses,” he said. 

    The recent drop in mortgage rates to just over 6% has spurred more home buying and refinancing activity, according to Freddie Mac. 

    Morgan Stanley analysts estimate that the government buying $200 billion in mortgage securities would drive home loan costs down by 0.15%.

    “While any decline in mortgage rates is helpful for affordability, the standalone impact of this move on our numbers is small,” analysts with the investment bank said in a report.  

    A dip in mortgage rates also risks pushing up home prices as more buyers enter the market, according to housing experts. 

    Credit card interest rate cap

    President Trump said another administration plan for help struggling Americans regain their financial footing — capping credit card interest rates at 10% for one year — would also boost housing affordability.

    “This will help millions of Americans save for a home,” said Mr. Trump, who has said that surging credit card debt impedes many Americans in saving for a down payment.

    The banking industry has opposed the cap, saying it would limit consumers’ access to credit and steer them toward riskier lending products.  

    Edited by

    Alain Sherter

    In:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: How’s Newsom doing at Davos? Just ask Trump

    [ad_1]

    What’s the absolute best way to give Gov. Gavin Newsom free publicity and a worldwide audience?

    Freeze him out at Davos, where the rich and powerful are meeting in the snow-capped mountains of Switzerland. The Trump administration is learning the hard way, in real time, that petty comes with a price — in this case, being laughed at by, well, the world.

    And while Congress, Europe and law may hold no terrors for our president, we all know ridicule hits him in his soft, white underbelly.

    In case you missed it, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the California governor has been banned from a scheduled media talk (allegedly under pressure from the White House) that was going to be a rebuttal to Trump’s ramble at the event, according to Newsom’s office.

    On Wednesday, Newsom’s team announced that he had been turned away from USA House, the privately run but official gathering spot of the United States. Newsom was scheduled to do a fireside chat with Fortune magazine, but apparently when he arrived at the church-turned-conference hall, he was politely told to beat it.

    “How weak and pathetic do you have to be to be this scared of a fireside chat?” Newsom posted on X.

    Cue the outrage. Cue the coverage.

    Fortune didn’t know the snub was coming, according to screen shots of private text messages reviewed by The Times, but within minutes it was world news. Except maybe on CBS.

    That’s a lot of focus on a guy who isn’t even a billionaire and doesn’t run a country, and supposedly isn’t even in the presidential race yet. In case you’re not personally familiar with the gathering at Davos, it’s pretty much the kings (and occasional queen) of the world coming together to think big thoughts. Getting cold-shouldered in that crowd is a big deal.

    But it’s the kind of big deal that makes Newsom look good. Blackballing him from USA House was akin to screaming in his face that he’s a big meanie and the president wasn’t going to take it any more. So there!

    It’s funny. It’s powerful. It gets him the kind of news coverage that other not-yet-candidates dream about.

    It makes it clear that far from the useful foil that the Newsom-Trump rivalry is often explained as, Newsom is hitting on points that are hitting home. With Trump, and with voters. And now, maybe with world leaders — which just makes him that much more viable as a candidate. Without a doubt, this is Trump quashing dissent.

    Earlier in the day, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went after Newsom, calling Newsom “Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken.”

    That’s a reference to the overly suave serial killer in the film “American Psycho” crossed with a popular 1990s version of a male Barbie known for its pretty eyes and good hair. To be fair, Newsom does resemble both of them.

    That remark came in response to Newsom calling Bessent’s speech “smug” for suggesting that the average American couple was buying up homes as rentals for their retirements. Personally, like most of us, I can’t even afford an extra Barbie doll house, so to be fair, Newsom is right on that one.

    Newsom also scored points off Trump’s speech. He called it “boring,” the most vicious insult you can hurl at Trump. But it was.

    For more than an hour, Trump repeatedly called Greenland Iceland by mistake, while demanding it be turned over to him.

    Yawn.

    He went after windmills because “they kill the birds, they ruin your landscapes.”

    Wut?

    He went after Minnesota with a particularly rabid if overused bit of racism, because it “reminds us that the West cannot mass import foreign cultures, which have failed to ever build a successful society of their own.”

    Yuck.

    As Newsom pointed out in a press gaggle not too long afterward — right before being banned from his formal talk — for an American audience, it’s the same ugly drivel we’ve been subjected to for nearly a year. Absolutely none of it is fresh, though it remains awful and dangerous.

    “My God, there wasn’t anything new about that speech,” Newsom said. “It was remarkably insignificant.”

    It was certainly not a speech that won Trump credibility or support from those kings and queens. It certainly did not contain diplomacy or leadership, or frankly, even sense. Despite the laughter and applause from the audience, I doubt there are few if any outside of Trump’s team who would call it a success.

    But for Newsom, Davos is a win.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • 7 ways Europe could hurt the U.S. if Trump doesn’t back down over Greenland | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Trump told those gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he would not use force to take Greenland, and the world breathed a sigh of relief. But he is still pushing tariffs on Europe if Denmark refuses to sell its territory to the U.S.

    Trump’s plan has outraged European leaders. “Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump’s “endless accumulation of new tariffs” were “fundamentally unacceptable.” Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for the EU to become “independent” from the U.S. and to make that independence “permanent.”

    But does Europe have enough economic weaponry to force the White House to think again?

    Maybe, according to Wall Street analysts.

    Here are seven ways the E.U. could hurt the U.S. economically if Trump refuses to take “no” for an answer on Greenland, according to research by George Saravelos of Deutsche Bank, Joachim Klement of Panmure Liberum, Macquarie’s Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry, and Pantheon Macreconomics’ Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen.

    1. Reduce the supply of foreign direct investment into U.S. bonds and equities by incentivizing investors to keep their capital assets in Europe.
      “European countries own $8 trillion of U.S. bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined,” Saravelos told clients a few days ago.
    2. Impose the $100 billion in duties on U.S. imports that were proposed and then dropped when the E.U. accepted a tariff deal last year. 
    3. Use the Digital Services Act to further limit how U.S. tech companies operate. 
    4. Implement the “Buy European” act to direct government purchases more toward European vendors.
    5. Implement the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to impose tariffs on U.S. services companies and companies linked to the U.S. government.
      The ACI would virtually ban U.S. services companies from operating in Europe, while Europe holds a trade surplus with the U.S. in services. This measure is often referred to as Europe’s trade “bazooka.”
    6. “Introduce export taxes on EU products exported to the U.S. that are hard to replace, such as chip-making equipment or specialized machinery,” Macquarie says.
      Removing the U.S.’s access to Netherlands-based semiconductor suppliers ASML, which has a virtual monopoly on some technologies, would create logistical challenges for many U.S tech companies.
    7. Place sanctions on U.S. companies operating in Greenland.

    “The U.S. has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined. In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” Saravelous told clients in a note that annoyed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

    Trump is not likely to take this lying down. Klement wrote on his Substack: “Of course, these actions will trigger an escalation by Trump in the short term, which is why some EU leaders like Friedrich Merz of Germany are currently trying to soften the EU’s response.

    “But 2025 also has shown that if countries remain firm, the escalation cycle ends within a couple of weeks and Trump rows back (or should I say ‘chickens out’?) once he realises he can’t bully others into submission.”

    At Macquarie, the analysts warned that a comprehensive package of economic sanctions against the U.S. would increase price inflation in America. “The EU has the capacity to retaliate economically, and may do so in the hope that a firm EU retaliation (to threats or military action by the U.S.) will end the escalation cycle after a few weeks, and that this is a risk worth taking. What can the EU do, actually? The EU can do enough to hurt the U.S. economy and U.S. security, and these the trade-related measures would likely be jointly inflationary,” they said.

    The ACI “bazooka” won’t hobble the U.S. but it could hurt, Tombs and Allen say. “U.S. services exports to the E.U. were $295bn in 2024, equivalent to 0.9% of U.S. GDP, suggesting the harm could be much greater if the E.U. pulled this relatively new lever at its disposal than if it responded simply with tariffs, though its economy would be hurt more too,” they told clients.

    Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.

    [ad_2]

    Jim Edwards

    Source link

  • Did US own Greenland? Fact-checking Trump’s Davos speech

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump made his pitch to acquire Greenland to international leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 21, saying for the first time he did not plan for the U.S. to take the land by force. 

    Trump, who talked up his tariff-based negotiation strategy, cited Greenland’s strategic position between the U.S., Russia and China as the main reason he wants to acquire the territory. 

    Retelling United States’ history with Greenland and Denmark, Trump said that during World War II, “We saved Greenland and successfully prevented our enemies from gaining a foothold in our hemisphere.”

    This much is accurate: After Germany invaded Denmark, the U.S. assumed responsibility for Greenland’s defense and established a military presence on the island that remains today, albeit in diminished scope.

    But Trump overstepped when he said that after World War II, “We gave Greenland back to Denmark.”

    “All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago,” Trump said.

    Although the U.S. defended Greenland during World War II, it never possessed the nation — and could not have given it back. Experts have told PolitiFact that Greenland’s status as part of Denmark is not in question, and hasn’t been for more than a century.

    Denmark’s colonization of Greenland dates to the 1720s. In 1933, an international court settled a territorial dispute between Denmark and Norway, ruling that as of July 1931, Denmark “possessed a valid title to the sovereignty over all Greenland.” 

    After the 1945 approval of the United Nations charter — the organization’s founding document and the foundation of much of international law — Denmark incorporated Greenland through a constitutional amendment and gave it representation in the Danish Parliament in 1953. Denmark told the United Nations that any colonial-type status had ended; the United Nations General Assembly accepted this change in November 1954. The United States was among the nations that voted to accept Greenland’s new status.

    Since then, Greenland has, incrementally but consistently, moved toward greater autonomy. 

    Greenlandic political activists successfully pushed for and achieved home rule in 1979, which established its parliament. Today, Greenland is a district within the sovereign state of Denmark, with two elected representatives in Denmark’s parliament.

    Gullfoss Falls in Iceland on Aug. 10, 2025. (Louis Jacobson / PolitiFact)

    What about Iceland?

    Four times in the Davos speech, Trump referred to Iceland instead of Greenland.

    “Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland,” Trump said. “So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money, but that dip is peanuts compared to what it’s gone up, and we have an unbelievable future.”

    U.S. markets reacted negatively to Trump’s Greenland comments the day before his Davos speech, falling about 2% in value. 

    But in recent weeks, Trump has said nothing about acquiring Iceland, an independent island nation with nearly 400,000 residents, located east of Greenland. 

    In an X post following Trump’s Davos address, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized a reporter for posting that Trump “appeared to mix up Greenland and Iceland” several times. Leavitt said Trump’s “written remarks referred to Greenland as a ‘piece of ice’ because that’s what it is.” Although Trump did call Greenland a “very big piece of ice,” he also separately mentioned “Iceland.”

    Traditionally, Icelanders have maintained strong ties to the United States, dating back to World War II, when Iceland’s government invited U.S. troops into the country. In 1949, Iceland became a founding member of NATO, and in 1951, the two countries signed a bilateral defense agreement that still stands.

    Its location — between the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans, a strategic naval choke point in the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap — means that Iceland, despite its lack of a standing military, is geographically important for both North America and Europe.

    In 2006, the U.S. gave up its permanent troop presence at the Keflavík Air Base — a 45-minute drive south of the capital of Reykjavík — but U.S. troops still rotate through. Icelandic civilians now handle key NATO tasks such as submarine surveillance and operations at four radar sites on the nation’s periphery. Iceland also makes financial contributions to NATO trust funds and contributes a small number of technical and diplomatic personnel to NATO operations.

    Trump’s pick for ambassador to Iceland, former Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., attracted criticism earlier this month when he was overheard saying Iceland should become a U.S. state after Greenland, and that he would serve as governor.

    Long apologized during an interview with Arctic Today. 

    “There was nothing serious about that, I was with some people, who I hadn’t met for three years, and they were kidding about Jeff Landry being governor of Greenland and they started joking about me, and if anyone took offense to it, then I apologize,” Long told the publication. (Trump tapped Landry, Louisiana’s Republican governor, to be the U.S. envoy to Greenland.)

    Silja Bára R. Ómarsdóttir, an international affairs professor who now serves as rector, or president, of the University of Iceland, told the Tampa Bay Times in August that newfound attention to Iceland’s security, including concerns over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the rest of Europe, is “definitely very noticeable at the political level.” 

    Multiple analysts in Iceland told the Times, only half-jokingly, that the key to surviving the Trump era has been to remain out of sight, something Greenland — for whatever the reason — was unlucky enough to do.

    “You could say Icelandic policy towards the U.S. has been to try to keep under the radar,” said Pia Elísabeth Hansson, director of the Institute of International Affairs at the University of Iceland.

    UPDATED, Jan. 21, 2026: This article has been updated to reference an X post by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon CEO warns prices have gone up from tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Some of the things people buy the most are at their most expensive point of the year as the calendar changes over to 2026. Our get the facts data team dug into what actually caused the prices of some items to go up or go down. Let’s start with beef. Right now, the average price for ground beef is 823 per pound and 967 for steaks, the highest prices for both all year. Several factors like President Trump’s tariffs. Cattle inventories and an aging farming population contributed to the increase, but so did something called the New World screwworm, *** parasitic fly that produced *** deadly disease in some places like Mexico. Another grocery staple that is more expensive now, coffee. Our get the Facts data team found the price rose each month throughout the year, maxing out at 926 cents *** pound. Two of the world’s biggest coffee producers, Brazil and Vietnam, Were impacted by drought and excessive rains earlier this year, which reduced coffee production, and Brazil saw an additional 40% tariff over the summer as well. One of the biggest talking points, especially from President Trump about the state of the economy was egg prices. They are one of the few items tracked that actually are cheapest now. Egg prices saw their biggest price hike in nearly 10 years in January, then rose to an all-time high of 623. Per dozen in March. This was in large part to ongoing bird flu outbreaks. Egg prices would start falling in the summer and are now 286 *** dozen. Some other groceries that saw increases this year, cookies, potato chips, bacon, cheddar cheese, and orange juice. But it wasn’t all increases at the supermarket. Some items are cheaper now compared to January, like pasta, white bread, tomatoes, and strawberries. In Washington, I’m Amy Lou.

    If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.“The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.

    If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.

    Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    “So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”

    The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.

    After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.

    On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”

    In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.

    And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.

    “The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.

    “The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.

    Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Live fact-checking Donald Trump’s Davos speech

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump will address the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21. His address to world, policy and economic leaders follows Trump’s jockeying to own Greenland, tensions with NATO allies and the U.S. military capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

    PolitiFact will fact-check Trump live: 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump to address Davos World Economic Forum as America’s allies push back against his bid to take Greenland

    [ad_1]

    “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in his speech at Davos on Monday. “Great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

    “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination,” Carney said, making a case for “middle powers” like Canada to work together to gain leverage against “great powers,” which he said have the luxury of going it alone.

    “When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating,” Carney said. “This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice — compete with each other for favor, or to combine to create a third path with impact.”

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a speech at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 20, 2026.

    Harun Ozalp/Anadolu/Getty


    He called other nations to join Canada to pursue shared values, supporting Ukraine, NATO, and Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty, and warned them to “stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is — a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.”

    “The powerful have their power,” Carney said. “But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.”

    His remarks drew a standing ovation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘This will be an interesting trip’: President Trump to speak in Switzerland amid Greenland uproar

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.”This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland. Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June. The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance. “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland. Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:s

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.

    “This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.

    The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland.

    Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June.

    The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.

    In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance.

    “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.

    Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland.

    Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.

    Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.

    This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    s

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Air Force One carrying Trump to Davos turns around after

    [ad_1]

    A “minor electrical issue” forced Air Force One to turn around and return to Maryland less than an hour after takeoff Tuesday night as it was headed for Davos, Switzerland, with President Trump aboard, White House officials said. The president then departed for Switzerland aboard a new plane about one hour later. 

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters aboard the plane that, after takeoff from Joint Base Andrews, the crew identified a “minor electrical issue,” and, out of an abundance of caution, chose to turn around and return to the base.  

    Air Force One landed back at the base at 11:07 p.m. Eastern Time. 

    A view of Air Force One after returning to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Jan. 20, 2026. 

    Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images


    Reporters had said that the lights in the press cabin briefly went out after takeoff, but no explanation was offered.

    The president then boarded a new aircraft, which took off at around midnight. The second aircraft is an Air Force C-32, a modified Boeing 757 normally used by the president for domestic trips to smaller airports, according to the Associated Press. 

    Mr. Trump is headed to Davos for the World Economic Forum. He was scheduled to address the forum at about 8:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, shortly after landing, but that could be delayed.

    “This will be an interesting trip,” Mr. Trump told reporters on the White House lawn shortly before departing for Joint Base Andrews. “I have no idea what is going to happen. But you are well represented.”   

    There are currently two modified Boeing 747s that serve as Air Force One. Both have been in service since 1990. They were set to be replaced in 2024 with modified Boeing 747s, but the completion of the first replacement plane was delayed until 2027, and the second delayed to 2028, according to the U.S. Air Force. 

    Last summer, Mr. Trump confirmed that the Qatari royal family had donated a Boeing 747-8 jumbo aircraft valued at $400 million to the president to eventually be used as Air Force One. However, renovating the plane could cost several hundred million dollars before it could be ready for use, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said last June.

    Jennifer Jacobs

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Billionaire Marc Benioff challenges the AI sector: ‘What’s more important to us, growth or our kids?’ | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Imagine it is 1996. You log on to your desktop computer (which took several minutes to start up), listening to the rhythmic screech and hiss of the modem connecting you to the World Wide Web. You navigate to a clunky message board—like AOL or Prodigy—to discuss your favorite hobbies, from Beanie Babies to the newest mixtapes.

    At the time, a little-known law called Section 230 of the Communications Safety Act had just been passed. The law—then just a 26-word document—created the modern internet. It was intended to protect “good samaritans” who moderate websites from regulation, placing the responsibility for content on individual users rather than the host company.

    Today, the law remains largely the same despite evolutionary leaps in internet technology and pushback from critics, now among them Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff. 

    In a conversation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, titled “Where Can New Growth Come From?” Benioff railed against Section 230, saying the law prevents tech giants from being held accountable for the dangers AI and social media pose.

    “Things like Section 230 in the United States need to be reshaped because these tech companies will not be held responsible for the damage that they are basically doing to our families,” Benioff said in the panel conversation which also included Axa CEO Thomas Buberl, Alphabet President Ruth Porat, Emirati government official Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, and Bloomberg journalist Francine Lacqua.

    As a growing number of children in the U.S. log onto AI and social media platforms, Benioff said the legislation threatens the safety of kids and families. The billionaire asked, “What’s more important to us, growth or our kids? What’s more important to us, growth or our families? Or, what’s more important, growth or the fundamental values of our society?”

    Section 230 as a shield for tech firms

    Tech companies have invoked Section 230 as a legal defense when dealing with issues of user harm, including in the 2019 case Force v. Facebook, where the court ruled the platform wasn’t liable for algorithms that connected members of Hamas after the terrorist organization used the platform to encourage murder in Israel. The law could shield tech companies from liability for harm AI platforms pose, including the production of deepfakes and AI-Generated sexual abuse material.

    Benioff has been a vocal critic of Section 230 since 2019 and has repeatedly called for the legislation to be abolished. 

    In recent years, Section 230 has come under increasing public scrutiny as both Democrats and Republicans have grown skeptical of the legislation. In 2019 the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump pursued a broad review of Section 230. In May 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order limiting tech platforms’ immunity after Twitter added fact-checks to his tweets. And in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Gonzalez v. Google, though, decided it on other grounds, leaving Section 230 intact.

    In an interview with Fortune in December 2025, Dartmouth business school professor Scott Anthony voiced concern over the “guardrails” that were—and weren’t—happening with AI. When cars were first invented, he pointed out, it took time for speed limits and driver’s licenses to follow. Now with AI, “we’ve got the technology, we’re figuring out the norms, but the idea of, ‘Hey, let’s just keep our hands off,’ I think it’s just really bad.”

    The decision to exempt platforms from liability, Anthony added, “I just think that it’s not been good for the world. And I think we are, unfortunately, making the mistake again with AI.”

    For Benioff, the fight to repeal Section 230 is more than a push to regulate tech companies, but a reallocation of priorities toward safety and away from unfettered growth. “In the era of this incredible growth, we’re drunk on the growth,” Benioff said. “Let’s make sure that we use this moment also to remember that we’re also about values as well.”

    [ad_2]

    Jake Angelo

    Source link

  • Deutsche Bank shares up 6% after first-quarter profit beat, investment banking recovery

    Deutsche Bank shares up 6% after first-quarter profit beat, investment banking recovery

    [ad_1]

    Deutsche Bank shares were 6% higher on Thursday afternoon after the German lender reported a 10% rise in first-quarter profit, beating expectations amid an ongoing recovery in its investment banking unit.

    Net profit attributable to shareholders was 1.275 billion euros ($1.365 billion) for the period, ahead of an aggregate analyst forecast of 1.23 billion euros for the period, according to LSEG data.

    Deutsche Bank said this was its highest first-quarter profit since 2013. It also marks the bank’s 15th straight quarterly profit.

    Group revenue rose 1% year-on-year to 7.8 billion euros, which the bank attributed to growth in commissions and fee income, along with strength in fixed income and currencies. The revenue print also came in ahead of an analyst forecast of 7.73 billion euros, according to LSEG.

    Revenues at its investment bank increased 13% to 3 billion euros, following a 9% slump through full-year 2023 which had dragged down overall profit. The performance restores the division as Deutsche Bank’s highest-earning unit on growth in financing and credit trading revenue.

    Other first-quarter highlights included:

    • Net inflows of 19 billion euros across the Private Bank and Asset Management divisions.
    • Credit loss provision was 439 million euros, down from 488 million in the fourth quarter of 2023.
    • Common equity tier one (CET1) capital ratio — a measure of bank solvency — was 13.4%, compared to 13.6% at the same time last year.

    “There’s momentum in the businesses, actually across all four businesses, and we do think it’s sustainable,” Deutsche Bank Chief Financial Officer James von Moltke told CNBC’s Annette Weisbach on Thursday.

    “We’re delivering on our commitments on costs and capital returns in the quarter.”

    Germany’s biggest lender reported net profit of 1.3 billion euros in the prior quarter and of 1.16 billion euros in the first quarter last year.

    In 2023, the bank announced it would cut 3,500 jobs over the coming years, as it targets 2.5 billion euros in operational efficiencies to boost profitability and increase shareholder returns.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SHPE Attends the World Economic Forum in Davos

    SHPE Attends the World Economic Forum in Davos

    [ad_1]

    SHPE Joins 4th Delegation of Hispanic Leaders at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Representing the 5th Largest Economy in the World


    LOS ANGELES, February 5, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    In January 2024, SHPE attended the 54th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This yearly convening welcomes over 100 governments, all major international organizations, 1,000 Forum’s Partners, as well as civil society leaders, experts, youth representatives, social entrepreneurs, and news outlets.

    SHPE interim CEO Miguel Alemañy and Chief External Relations Officer Monique Herrera were invited by the We Are All Human Foundation to join the Hispanic Delegation in Davos. This delegation aims to ensure that Hispanic voices are heard and that Hispanic leaders have a seat at the table when decisions impacting their communities are made.

    While this was SHPE’s second time joining the global gathering, Alemañy and Herrera were not in unfamiliar territory. Many of the organization’s greatest supporters had both representation and influence there. SHPE partners like IBM, Microsoft, Bank of America, Accenture, Qualcomm, and JP Morgan Chase were major players in discussions that took place throughout the week.

    “The access we had to industry decision-makers was remarkable, “ says Hererra. “It was incredibly valuable to be able to have conversations with various corporate leaders in one place. What might usually take months to make happen due to travel and scheduling, we could accomplish in one evening while there.”

    The Forum’s theme was “Rebuilding Trust.” In response to the rise of AI and its effect on the global workforce, it was designed to be a crucial space to focus on the fundamental principles driving trust, including transparency, consistency, and accountability. 

    Speaker sessions and panels provided important insights into the future of the STEM employee. Key learnings included the role of the knowledge worker, emphasis on pre-skilling employees, and the importance of middle management. Additionally, a commitment to DEI was reinforced consistently. 

    “We walked away with three truths,” says Alemañy. “STEM careers are still on the rise and will be for the next 20, 30, 50 years. As the 5th largest economy in the world, Hispanics are both an economic powerhouse and workforce goldmine in the coming decades. And SHPE is uniquely positioned to answer the call of this supply and demand with our passionate and resilient members.”

    “This experience was helpful on two levels,” Hererra added. “It reinforced that SHPE’s current programs are providing necessary pre-skill training, leadership development, and problem-solving for the next generation of STEM workers. It also helped us lay groundwork for new programs to address the challenges facing an evolving tech-centered world in the future.”

    SHPE is grateful for the partners that made this trip possible: We Are All Human Foundation, HACE, Latinas in TECH, Martin Cabrera with Cabrera Capital, Dr. Robert Rodriguez, and HACR. SHPE looks forward to working together in the coming years to elevate the influence and recognition of Hispanics.

    Source: SHPE

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Deutsche Bank smashes profit estimates and boosts shareholder returns

    Deutsche Bank smashes profit estimates and boosts shareholder returns

    [ad_1]

    Deutsche Bank on Thursday smashed fourth-quarter earnings expectations, reporting net profit of 1.3 billion euros ($1.4 billion) and announcing a further 1.6 billion euros in shareholder returns for 2024.

    The quarterly net profit figure marked an almost 30% fall from the same quarter a year ago but was significantly higher than the 785.61 million euros expected by analysts. It follows net profit of 1.031 billion euros for the previous quarter and 1.8 billion euros for the same period last year.

    Shares were 4.6% higher in morning trade in Europe.

    The German lender also announced plans to hike share buybacks and dividends by 50%, returning a total of 1.6 billion euros to shareholders.

    Deutsche said it is planning an additional share buyback of 675 million euros, which it aims to complete in the first half of the year. This follows 450 million euros of repurchases in 2023. It also plans to recommend 900 million euros in shareholder dividends for 2023 at its Annual General Meeting in May.

    For the year as a whole, the bank reported 4.2 billion euros in net income attributable to shareholders — beating expectations of 3.685 billion euros expected by analysts.

    “Pre-tax profit at 5.7 billion is at a high, we grew year-on-year despite some items that in this year created some noise, but what’s really exciting is the momentum we see in the business,” Deutsche Bank CFO James von Moltke told CNBC on Thursday.

    “We had a 10% year-on-year growth in our investment bank in the fourth quarter, and admittedly in a year that was still retracing the very strong performances of 2021 and 22, so 9% down for the full year, but we see momentum especially now going into ’24 in origination advisory and very strong, I think consistent, performance in our FIC [fixed income and currencies] franchise.”

    As part of a 2.5 billion euro operational efficiency program, Deutsche Bank said it expects to cut 3,500 jobs, mainly in “non-client-facing areas.”

    Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

    hide content

    Deutsche Bank shares

    As of the end of 2023, savings either realized or expected from completed measures under the efficiency program grew to 1.3 billion euros, the bank estimated. The program’s goal is to reduce the quarterly run-rate of adjusted costs to 5 billion euros, with total costs falling to around 20 billion in 2025.

    In a statement Thursday, Sewing said the bank’s 2023 performance “underlines the strength of our Global Hausbank strategy as we help our clients navigate an uncertain environment.”

    “We have achieved our highest profit before tax in 16 years, delivered growth well ahead of target and maintained our focus on cost discipline while investing in key areas,” Sewing said.

    “Our strong capital generation enables us to accelerate distributions to shareholders. This gives us firm confidence that we will deliver on our 2025 targets.”

    Other fourth-quarter highlights included:

    • Net revenues grew 5% year-on-year to 6.7 billion euros, bringing the annual total to 28.9 billion.
    • Net inflows of 18 billion euros across the Private Bank and Asset Management divisions.
    • Credit loss provision was 488 million euros, compared to 351 million in the same period of 2022.
    • Common equity tier one (CET1) capital ratio — a measure of bank solvency — was 13.7% at the end of 2023, compared to 13.4% at the end of the previous year.

    Amid concerns about bank profitability and reports that the German government is considering a sale of some of its company holdings, including its 15% stake in Commerzbank, Deutsche has emerged as the subject of merger speculation in recent months.

    However, CEO Christian Sewing told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that acquisitions were not a “priority” for Germany’s largest bank.

    Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Deutsche Bank’s results were released on Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link