47th US Presidency, Early Thoughts / DAVOS 2025

Summary

This panel discussion, held shortly after Trump’s inauguration for a second term, focused on the potential impacts of his presidency on various aspects of domestic and international affairs. Experts in economics, geopolitics, and international relations debated the likely outcomes of Trump’s policies and leadership style.

The panelists discussed Trump’s approach to trade, particularly with China, with some expecting a deal while others anticipated increased tensions. They explored the possibility of Trump brokering a peace agreement in Ukraine within six months, leveraging his dealmaking style and willingness to use economic pressure. The discussion touched on the Middle East, noting the changing dynamics and the potential for a paradigm shift without necessarily achieving peace.

Economic prospects under Trump were debated, with some panelists expecting increased growth due to deregulation and tax cuts, while others warned of inflationary pressures and higher deficits. The panel addressed the ethical concerns surrounding Trump’s business interests and the launch of his cryptocurrency, with some viewing it as a new normal in politics.

The discussion highlighted the transformative impact of technology on politics and society, drawing parallels to the Industrial Revolution. Panelists noted the rise of populism and anti-establishment sentiments, warning of potential instability. They also explored the emergence of a “far-right international” coalition around Trump and debated the future of US-China relations under his leadership.

The panel concluded by discussing Trump’s cabinet appointments, with some expressing concern over qualifications while others viewed it as part of Trump’s political strategy to manage his coalition. Overall, the discussion emphasized the unique and potentially transformative nature of Trump’s second term, with implications for both domestic and global affairs.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Trump’s potential economic and trade policies, including tariffs and negotiations with China

– Geopolitical issues like Ukraine, the Middle East, and U.S.-China relations under Trump

– The impact of technology and social media (e.g. TikTok) on politics and society

– Concerns about conflicts of interest and the blurring of business and politics under Trump

– Trump’s cabinet appointments and management style

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to analyze and predict the potential impacts and implications of Trump’s second term as president, covering both domestic and international issues. The panel of experts aimed to provide insights into what to expect from the new administration.

Tone:

The overall tone was analytical and speculative, with experts offering differing viewpoints. There was a mix of cautious optimism and concern expressed. The tone became more critical later in the discussion when addressing issues like conflicts of interest and cabinet appointments. Throughout, there was an acknowledgment of Trump as an unconventional leader requiring new frameworks of analysis.

Speakers

– Alessandra Galloni: Editor-in-Chief of Reuters

– Graham Allison: Expert on international affairs and national security, former assistant secretary of state under Clinton, professor

– Walter Mead: Expert on global strategy, fellow at Hudson Institute and Council on Foreign Relations

– Allison Schrager: Economist at Manhattan Institute

– Ian Bremmer: Political scientist, founder of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media

Additional speakers:

– Gustavo Pimenta: CEO of Vale mining company

– Ardem Paraputian: Nobel laureate from Scripps, La Jolla, California

– Ishan Tharoor: Washington Post journalist

Revised Summary of Panel Discussion on Trump’s Second Term

This panel discussion, held shortly after Donald Trump’s inauguration for a second term as US President, brought together experts in economics, geopolitics, and international relations to debate the potential impacts of his presidency. The panel included Alessandra Galloni (Editor-in-Chief of Reuters), Graham Allison (expert on international affairs), Walter Mead (expert on global strategy), Allison Schrager (economist), and Ian Bremmer (political scientist).

Economic Outlook and Trade Policy

The panelists expressed divergent views on the economic prospects under Trump’s second term. Allison Schrager and Graham Allison agreed that Trump’s policies could lead to higher economic growth, primarily due to deregulation and tax cuts. However, Schrager cautioned about potential inflationary pressures, higher bond yields, and increased deficits, highlighting the challenges of balancing pro-growth policies with fiscal responsibility. The panel also noted Trump’s sensitivity to market feedback and how it might influence his policy decisions.

Trump’s approach to trade, particularly with China, was a significant point of contention. Graham Allison expressed optimism, predicting improved US-China relations and potential deals. In contrast, Ian Bremmer anticipated increased tensions, arguing that China remains skeptical of US intentions and that the relationship is heading towards a trade war and strategic decoupling. This disagreement led to a bet between Allison and Bremmer on the future of US-China relations.

The discussion on TikTok highlighted Trump’s changing stance and potential conflict with the GOP. Trump’s shift from banning TikTok to potentially profiting from it raised questions about policy consistency and ethical concerns.

Geopolitical Issues and Foreign Policy

Graham Allison made a bold prediction that the Ukraine war could end within six months of Trump’s term, based on Trump’s dealmaking style and willingness to use economic pressure. Walter Mead provided historical context on the Middle East, noting the potential for a paradigm shift without necessarily achieving peace.

Trump’s approach to foreign policy was characterised as a shift away from multilateralism towards bilateral dealmaking, raising concerns about the erosion of traditional diplomatic norms and the potential for personalised foreign policy decisions.

Domestic Politics and Governance

The panel highlighted the unprecedented nature of Trump’s political comeback and the consolidation of his power within the Republican Party. Ian Bremmer emphasised the importance of not normalising Trump’s presidency, given the amount of power he has amassed since his first term. He also discussed the divide within the Republican party between different factions of MAGA supporters.

Trump’s cabinet appointments were debated, with Walter Mead viewing them as reflecting political strategy more than expertise, while Allison Schrager expressed some approval from an economic perspective. The panel also addressed ethical concerns surrounding Trump’s business interests and the launch of his cryptocurrency, with some viewing it as a new normal in politics while others warned of long-term consequences for governance norms.

Broader Implications and Societal Changes

Walter Mead drew parallels between the current era and the Industrial Revolution, emphasising the transformative impact of technology on politics and society. The panel noted the rise of populism and anti-establishment sentiments, warning of potential instability.

An audience question prompted discussion about the emergence of a “far-right international” coalition around Trump, with panelists exploring the implications of this global trend. The growing divide between establishment and anti-establishment forces was highlighted, with concerns about increasing wealth inequality and the rise of oligarchs in the US political system.

In a lighter moment, the panel humorously discussed the potential for an artistic renaissance in America, satirically commenting on the influence of political connections in various fields.

Unresolved Questions and Future Challenges

The panel discussion left several critical questions unanswered, including:

1. How will Trump balance pro-growth policies with potential inflationary pressures?

2. Will Trump’s dealmaking approach with China succeed or lead to increased conflict?

3. What will be the long-term consequences of Trump’s erosion of political norms?

4. How will anti-establishment sentiments evolve during Trump’s second term?

Conclusion

The panel discussion emphasised the unique and potentially transformative nature of Trump’s second term, with significant implications for both domestic and global affairs. While there was some agreement on the potential for economic growth and the unprecedented nature of Trump’s presidency, the panelists diverged on many specific outcomes, reflecting the high level of uncertainty surrounding the future direction of US policy under a second Trump administration.

The discussion highlighted the need for continued analysis of Trump’s governance style, economic policies, and approach to international relations. It also underscored the importance of considering broader historical and technological trends that are shaping the political landscape beyond Trump’s presidency.

Alessandra Galloni: Really, we have experts in just about every field here, so hopefully it’ll be a very engaging conversation. So, Graham Allison here, I’ll start with you. I mean, you know, possibly, you know, the world’s, you know, foremost expert on international affairs, on national security, he was assistant secretary of state under Clinton. But again, one of the world’s most prominent authors, professors, thinkers on all issues of national security. Also my professor years ago, that’s my claim to fame. And sort of with special expertise on some of the issues that we’re going to be talking about. So, nuclear weapons, Russia, China, all the issues that are going to be front and center of the new administration. Ian Bremmer, right here to my left, you know, political scientist, founder of Eurasia Group, sort of the man of geopolitical risk around the world, also founder of GZERO Media. And again, one of the most prominent analysts of geopolitics, of geopolitical risk. Author, I believe, of 11 books, last time I checked. So Walter Mead, again, another global expert in strategy, statemanship, currently at the Hudson Institute, but has been a fellow at many, many organizations. A writer, a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, and again, one of the world’s foremost experts on issues of strategy and global strategy. Alison Schrager, economist at the Manhattan Institute, but she has worked throughout. She’s also a prolific writer, but has worked in finance, in policy, in media, and she’s going to decipher the big questions over what the economy is going to look like under Trump nationally and internationally. So I’m going to jump right in, and I am going to start with you, actually, Alison, because I think the, actually, before I start with you, I have, let’s take a poll. A lightning round for each of you. I would like to ask each of you to describe in one word what yesterday was. Ian.

Ian Bremmer: Complicit.

Graham Allison: Exciting.

Alessandra Galloni: Vibe shift.

Walter Mead: Trump.

Alessandra Galloni: Very good. Okay, Allison. So, one of the things that we did not see yesterday, I mean, among the flurry of executive orders and of diktats and of things that were said, we did not see actually much on the economy. You know, there was little action either on trade or on tariffs. President Trump did say that on February 1 he will slap a 25 percent tariff on Canada and on Mexico, but in general there wasn’t much that we was expecting. His emphasis, as we know, was on immigration, regulatory issues, climate, and also pardoning the January 6th defendants. So does this change what you think this administration will do pretty quickly on trade and on the economy, just based on the first 24 hours? No, I would have been shocked if he put on tariffs on day one. I read through the executive order he did do on tariffs, and the key word was review and assess.

Allison Schrager: So I think with Trump, something I’ve come to understand about him is, you know, he sees himself as a dealmaker, so he sort of puts out the maximalist position and then goes from there. So I think what markets pretty much have been pricing in is there’ll be some tariffs, but they’re largely a negotiating tool to get better deals, which in and of itself I think is significant. I mean, we breathe a sigh of relief with that, but it also is a big change, one, that we’re doing more sticks, fewer carrots when it comes to sort of the global trade order, and two, moving away from, I mean, it seems like in the post-war era we had this idea that better trade policy came from international, these big multilateral organizations coming up with trade policy that made sense for, you know, the whole world. I mean, whether or not— I think that did work pretty well for a while, whether or not that was still working is debatable, but this is more sort of, you know, we’ll see a lot more bilateral deals or some more sort of deals amongst sort of smaller groups of countries, and that’s a big change. So even if this is, I mean, well, they’re not gonna be the big tariffs we expected, this is a deal-making proposition, I think it does represent a very big shift in terms of sort of the global, like, post-war economic order. And, you know, in some ways, that’s bad. In some ways, though, it is good. There were problems with what we had before. Certainly, I think, if there’s one thing I noticed he seemed very focused on was China, and it’s not like we were in a free trade utopia with China before. So I think right now, I’m optimistic about a lot of his economic policies. I think they are gonna result, at least initially, in higher growth, although higher debt, and potentially changes to the dollar, but, and also potentially higher inflation. I think people forget that more than 20 years ago, we used to see high growth go with high inflation. So I think that’s all in the pipes, but right now, his economic policy is certainly sort of more wait-and-see. Just let me push you on China.

Alessandra Galloni: So, you know, he said he wants to go right away. You know, so do you, Alison. What’s your prognosis there? What do you think will be the first moves?

Allison Schrager: With China? Probably tariffs of some kind. I expect, you know, he’ll probably keep a lot of the Biden ones. Biden put a lot of sort of, said certainly restrictions on technology with EVs, so he’ll probably keep that, and probably negotiate, maybe not 60%, which is what he threw out. Again, he goes with the maximalist position and goes down from there, but probably there will be less trade with China going forward.

Alessandra Galloni: Yeah. Let me turn to you. I want to, you were nodding on China, so feel free to jump in on China, but I was going to ask you about, you know, on the geopolitical stage about Ukraine, which is another one of the hot issues that we’re expecting right now. President Zelensky is addressing the forum today, and President Trump has said that one of the first things that he would do was find peace in the Russia-Ukraine war. How likely is that? What are you expecting? What do you think Trump will do vis-a-vis sanctions on Russia, on the one hand, and military aid for Ukraine, on the other? Well, anybody whose crystal ball is clear probably hasn’t understood the problem.

Graham Allison: So it’s hazy. But I would say, if you try to take Trump seriously, but not literally, and you take the time to watch his antics, and watch the rallies, and watch the tweets, and read between the lines, you can get some pretty good clues about what’s likely to happen. So I would predict that six months from now, the Ukraine war will be over. You asked about China. I think China will be part of the deal. I think that it’ll settle roughly at the current line of division, which is where it will have settled a year ago, or a year ago, or the year ago. Trump’s repeated line about this is endless, useless killing. Each year, Ukraine is in a worse position than it was the year before. This is set for a deal, if they were a dealmaker. And he’s looking at it. And I think that’s what I would suspect will be a big piece of it. Indeed, if you look at his inaugural speech and the press conference, he wants to be not only a dealmaker, but an international dealmaker who’s a peacemaker. And he’s got a very interesting sense for a war, which he’s very strongly against. He’s for preventing wars, he says. And a nuclear war, he in particular has a fixation. So I don’t know if you remember in the middle of the debate, he said, oh my god, there could be a nuclear war. That’s a much more imminent danger than global climate. Kamala had no idea what he was talking about. Neither did the two moderators. They were thinking, you know, maybe he said Martians came, or, you know, it’s just something completely bizarre. He, like Biden, and no other president before that since, probably Reagan, has a feel for nuclear weapons. I suspect that there’s a lot in this agenda. In fact, I have a piece that’ll be published next week that asks the question, is Trump a China hawk? And I think if you look at what he said and did in the campaign, you’ll find it’s difficult to classify him in those terms.

Alessandra Galloni: Let me push you on the deal that you expect in six months. What would make Ukraine, President Zelensky, accept such a deal at the current border, at the current, where they’ve reached?

Graham Allison: A phone call that he’ll have with him that says, you’re getting no more money and no more arms if you don’t accept the deal that I’m negotiating. And Zelensky will argue today, I’m sure we could never do that, blah, blah, blah. He’ll never have any options. A dealmaker who, like Trump, who’s in favor of using his leverage that he has to extract a deal that he thinks is good enough would regard Biden’s administration, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. He thinks that’s stupid. Why would you say, if you’re negotiating with somebody that’s a weak partner, nothing about them without them, why not negotiate over their head? Why should I be consulting them about something that they need from me? So I think he can see the outline of that deal. I think that deal has actually been, I mean, that’s my personal view, won the table for two or three years if we had had an American diplomatic initiative, which we didn’t. And sanctions on Russia? I think he will, in the, it’ll be interesting to see, again, and I’ve been trying to read between the lines and pick up pieces of information about this. Undoubtedly, there’s been conversations between him and. Putin in between. So I suspect they’ve had a number of phone calls in which they have some understanding of each other. But I think his appreciation of the China angle, which I think is an important angle of the deal, would be that if he and she have agreed about something, Putin will agree.

Alessandra Galloni: You look like you were about to jump in on this. No, I can wait, that’s fine. Well, I was going to move to the other big top foreign policy issue, which is obviously the Middle East. And I was going to go to Walter. Trump has taken credit together with the Biden administration for this first peace deal. The first phase of it is going to last six weeks. So already at the beginning of it on Sunday morning, it looked like it might fall apart. Both sides are nervous. You are an expert on the Middle East. What is your take? Will this ceasefire hold? What are the prospects for long standing peace? And also the world that Trump inherits in the Middle East is very different than four years ago with what we’ve seen, just even in the last months, including most lately with Syria. So what are the chances for a real paradigm shift in the region with this administration?

Walter Mead: Well, I think you can see a paradigm shift without peace. And that Israel has had a strategic problem since the 1940s, which that it wins wars, but can’t then get to a stable, peaceful arrangement. And I think that remains the case. What we’ve seen is Israel managed with a lot more help from the Biden administration and the Biden administration was in a sense comfortable with providing, but did provide to inflict an extraordinary series of defeats on Iran and its proxies. That has changed the Middle East in the sense that. Iran today is not the power that it was a year ago. Personally, I think that’s a good thing. But do we think that the Iranian challenge was the only factor destabilizing the Middle East, and now that that factor has been reduced, everything will move along peacefully? I don’t think that’s actually how the Middle East works. Some years ago, I was lucky enough to visit the city of Çanakkale in Turkey, and I went to see the ruins of Troy. I stood on a mound of 13 cities over 3,500 years, each of which had flourished for a time and then was sacked and burned. And that suggests to me that peace in the Middle East is perhaps, remains a beautiful but maybe distant dream.

Alessandra Galloni: Ian, I’m gonna come to you on another issue. I wanted to see if you wanted to jump in on any of the foreign policy issues, or you, Alison.

Ian Bremmer: Sure, in the sense that, first of all, in China, I don’t disagree with what Alison just said, but I do think that the U.S.-China relationship is probably the one that is most problematic to get a deal. I think that we are heading towards a trade war and towards a more strategic decoupling of the economies. One reason for that is because Trump isn’t just focusing on tariffs on China, but he’s also focusing on third countries where there are pass-throughs to the U.S. The only way the Chinese economy is succeeding right now is through their $1 trillion export surplus. And so you see Trump and his team focusing a lot on Mexico and India and Vietnam. The other conversations they’re having bilaterally, one of the top priorities is squeeze China coming in. That’s very hard for China to respond to. You’ve already seen Scheinbaum in Mexico. That’s been her top priority. Before she meets with him, we’ve got a Mexico plan that is gonna take the Chinese out, right? So I think that makes it much harder. And I also think China’s complicated. And Graham knows this well. I mean, the only reason we’ve stabilized U.S.-China relations in the last year and a half is because there are 25 high-level, cabinet-to-cabinet. bilats, channels that have been set up, there’s an enormous amount of effort put into the relationship. So I agree with Alison that Trump has an orientation to meet with Xi and have a good meeting and flatter him a little bit and say, come on, let’s get to a deal. But getting to a deal with China will require a level of execution, implementation that’s far more complicated across the Trump administration, not to mention some support from the GOP and Congress. We’re nowhere close to that. So I actually think that in the coming months, we are heading to a dramatic shift in where the US-China relationship is. That’s the one on the foreign policy side where I would say we need to be paying attention to. Everybody here has a lot of equities at stake there, whether or not you’re invested.

Alessandra Galloni: Well, you mentioned the GOP. I mean, Alison, I mean, the other big question is obviously, and you alluded to it as inflationary pressures, right? I mean, just a couple of days ago, Scott Besson was saying, no, no, no, you know, it’ll be offset by currency fluctuations. It’ll be offset by our negotiating power. But that is clearly an issue, right? I mean, that’s sort of the nightmare for Trump.

Allison Schrager: Yeah, I mean, it’s possible that could happen, but that assumes that everyone’s consumption basket just adjusts just so, and we know that doesn’t happen. I think, you know, there’s gonna be inflationary pressure on this administration, and I said for a lot of reasons. One, I mean, if we did do a cross-the-board big tariffs, we’d see an increase in the price level. It’s not sure, clear that we’d have a sustained higher inflation, but prices would go up at least initially. And I mean, also, it is becoming kind of obvious that we’re at potentially an equilibrium higher level of inflation, around three, two and a half, 3%, which is just higher than we’ve had before, and that’s gonna mean, I think, a bigger challenge for this administration is higher bond yields. And I said, I’m optimistic they have a pro-growth agenda, but it is gonna be, you know, deficits are gonna increase, too. Like, there’s nothing particularly fiscally responsible about their plans, so with higher interest rates, that could end up being a big issue. Trump is very sensitive to market feedback. And, in his first administration, you know, he is probably going to make permanent his tax cuts, but he is able to do that in a very low interest rate environment. It’s, you know, he’s not only planning on making his tax cuts permanent, he’s going to lower the corporate income tax, probably. He wants to reduce the SALT deduction and, you know, all these other things, like tax on tips, all these things. And so, he really does have a policy that is going to increase deficits, but he’s also going to be facing higher interest rates, in part by the just higher level of inflation that he’s not even causing, that just exists in the world. And that’s going to, I think, pose a real challenge for him. Yeah, exactly. Please, yes. So, I’ll try to be contrarian here and a little bit more optimistic.

Graham Allison: So, I think it’s quite likely that we’ll see a significant increase in the growth rate. I think the exciting of animal spirits is amazing. If you look at the billionaire cabinet, they’re all self-made billionaires who think, well, heck, there should be a hundred more similar people doing whatever we’ve done. Why can’t there be? I think the reduction, the elimination of regulations that work, that protected for green are gone, drill, whatever, DEI, gone, so a whole layer of regulatory activity. So, I think, at least the companies that I’m watching and listening to, they’re all quite excited that this is going to be a positive environment for them. I agree. So, in that environment, I agree with you that there’s some realities of economics that they’re going to bump into. Well, logistically, yeah. Interest rates are what they are. Interest rates will have the impact or inflation will have the impact. But I think that, at least I can tell a story how this time next year, we’ll feel that the American economy had actually…

Alessandra Galloni: on into this period of growth, that’s the golden age. That he’s referring to, that he referred to. Allison, will you jump in? Yeah, no, I agree.

Allison Schrager: I think it’s not only the deregulation. I think he wants to cut corporate taxes to 15%. I think that’s also gonna be very good for growth and the animal spirits. I said, I think, when I said vibe shift, I think one thing I never thought I would see in 2016 is people are really excited, you know? And I think, I said there is a feeling of positivity that is gonna reduce a lot of growth. I said, I worry long term that this is largely deficit financed. By excited, you mean that some are really like happy and some are terrified, right? That’s what you mean. Yeah, because I feel that, you know, that the country’s obviously polarized exactly. Just a little. Yeah, just a little. Just a little. But did you wanna finish, Allison, and then we’ll go? No, but Svent, he imagines he’s gonna reduce the deficit at the same time. With growth. Exactly, now. Right, I mean, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Do you see those numbers conceivably working? No, well, I mean, this is sort of the central fallacy that seems to be plaguing both parties now is that there’s this free lunch that I think the Biden administration thought that all their industrial policy would produce so much growth, it would pay for what it costs. And I think they’re falling for the old Republican sort of supply side idea that we can cut taxes to produce so much growth, it will pay for itself. And I think these things both do produce growth, just not enough to pay for themselves.

Ian Bremmer: Ian, did you wanna jump in? I just wanna make sure that, it’s not that I disagree with a lot of what we said so far, but we don’t wanna treat Trump as if he’s just another president. He’s not. Don’t normalize this, right? I mean, first of all, because of the amount of power that he has managed to amass, right? I mean, the Republican Party is his. It wasn’t in 2017. He has won despite, in some ways because of, two impeachments, never happened before. Lots of felony charges and convictions never happened before. And he won. He won the popular vote. He didn’t win a massive mandate, but he won with people knowing this was a feature, not a bug. It’s not like 2016. And he’s also in a much stronger position globally because, of course, the United States, the economy is doing better after the pandemic. Technologically, the Americans are dominant in so many ways, especially compared to allies. And America’s allies, many of their governments are in severe disarray, right? While America’s adversaries, China’s in the worst economic position since the 90s, maybe the 70s. Russia’s in severe decline. Iran’s just lost its empire by proxy. So it’s a very unusual time to have an individual that is in no way concerned about or constrained by rule of law. He’s made that very clear. And now, what is he actually going to do? Is he going to be a dictator? No, I’m not in any way in that camp. But I do think one of the best ways to understand what Trump will do is to understand who pays him, right? I mean, he flipped on TikTok. He was one of the first people that was opposed to TikTok, but he shifted because Jeff Yass and other investors paid him. That’s a good way to get Trump to do what he wants you to do. And we are seeing that. We saw it on the stage last night at the inauguration. And we’ll see it at Davos, of course, but we’ll also see it with all of the different leaders that are or aren’t responding to the demands that he’s making. The best way to get it done is not align your foreign policy with America strategically. It’s not support U.S.-led multilateral institutions that he’s not committed to. It’s pay Trump. And by the way, there’s now new crypto that allows you to do that. And by the way, I was critical. I was critical when Hunter Biden launched his crypto coin, too, which he didn’t do right for a reason, because it’s unprecedented. This is not if India was doing this, we would say they were kleptocracy. If Modi was on the phone with a head of state and Elon Musk showed up, we’d say this is a banana republic. But because it’s the United States and it’s Trump with Elon, it’s actually the new way of doing things. I accept that many of us will be complicit. I accept that many of us will find a way to get on with that. But that doesn’t mean it’s normal. And it doesn’t mean that we should sit and pretend. that it’s suddenly okay that this new presidency is just gonna keep on keeping on. That is not the case. And because, final point for me, because Trump is not going to be here for long, I mean in part because he’s 78, but in part because he only gets four years, right? Then everyone that has done this is gonna have to deal with the fact that next will be something else. And you’re gonna have to figure out a way to deal with that too.

Alessandra Galloni: So long-term consequences here. So you’ve raised three issues which were gonna be the three topics of, so that’s why you should have been the moderator. No, but no, you raised three important issues which is the prospect that Biden talked about in his last speech which was the oligarchy. Are we heading into a country of oligarchs? And it was extraordinary that he discovered that on his last week of his presidency. And then of course, as you say, one of the most striking images of yesterday, as you say, was all the tech entrepreneurs who were sort of around Trump at the balls at the inauguration and inside at all the events. So sort of oligarchy, is this an oligarchy? Is there a question of it? Is it ethical for Trump to launch a cryptocurrency as he’s becoming president? I think that’s a question that we can legitimately ask. And then TikTok. And maybe we’ll take it in reverse order. TikTok, what is interesting to me about TikTok is that actually it is a microcosm of many things around Trump. One, TikTok, arguably some people say that Trump won because so many of his followers are on TikTok. So it’s worth keeping it, right? On the other hand, he does, as you say, want to go and make a deal in China. Well, what could that deal be? Could it be half of TikTok without the algorithm stays in the U.S.? Somebody, big entrepreneur, a musk or somebody else could buy it. And so there’s a tension there. Also, he’s lost 200, not only Trump, but 200 Republicans voted to ban TikTok last year. So could this be the first sort of challenge with the GOP, with his party, which is also an interesting topic. So I actually think TikTok is interesting. Yes, you wanted to jump in?

Graham Allison: So the TikTok is a good example, I agree. And who made the biggest effort to try to get TikTok banned? Zuckerberg. Why? Because of competition? Well, advertising. No, because of his business. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Now, they did excited a lot of national security people about TikTok and what could be listened to. And there’s a concern, but as the concern is how about compared to your iPhone? Where’s your iPhone made? In China. Where’s your laptop made? In China. Where’s your keyboard made? In China. Oh my God. Could it be? Well, no, don’t talk about that. That’s mine. I can’t use my iPhone. Don’t tell me I can’t use my iPhone. So that was the argument actually Trump used yesterday at his press conference. So I think it’s a very complicated situation. I suspect it. I mean, if 170 million people like something, remember prohibition, it’s not a very good idea to be against that. And Trump’s not going to be against it if 170 million people like it. Is there a deal to be done there? There’s many deals to be done. And many that will be to somebody’s advantage. He must make the piece of it. You may have a partnership. So I would say that’s going to be an example. And I think, Ian, let me agree with completely, but kind of slightly disagree. I think in, you know, but I think your main point, we shouldn’t normalize Trump. Trump has done something no person in the world has ever done before. A dead man, a dead politician has risen. Somebody who a year, if we were four years ago at Davos, he’s buried dead politically. Don’t do me. He’s now returned. This is the greatest comeback in political history of a politician. And then therefore he thinks he can do anything. There’s a supreme confidence now about that. And lo and behold, I mean, this is a phenomenon that we shouldn’t try to understand only in the terms that we’re traditionally accepting. We should say something strange, new and amazing is happening here. And we should study it.

Alessandra Galloni: Walter?

Walter Mead: I would agree with both Ian and Graham on that. And I think, I’d add that we need to also factor in not only who’s won, which is Trump, but who’s lost, which is to say us. That is to say the sort of general kind of intellectual, professional, managerial people who sort of thought that the world was basically history was over and we were administering and trying to manage things according to rules that were all clear and known, and that history was kind of cumulative, and that tomorrow, even though we see this tech revolution happening around us, tomorrow is still going to be basically like today with incremental shifts. That’s not how things work, and especially not how things work at this kind of moment when a technological transformation is really biting into the economy on all kinds of levels in a transformational way. And I guess I would add, throw into that, that the epitome of the us who is losing here is Europe, that the European Union and, by and large, its member states have misread the direction where events were going. Sorry, my mic got in. I’m usually pretty loud. I hope you can hear me. And that the European Union, the causes that it is interested in, climate, human rights, some others, as well as the methods of diplomacy that it prefers are simply being gradually kind of marginalized as something new, not necessarily something better, but something new moves into the center. Just a quick, just on Europe as the European on the panel, I do think this is actually a great opportunity for Europe to sort of rise itself and get more of its act together with this administration. But I did want to ask, so what’s more important in the next four years? Tech or politics? You can’t separate them. Tech is transforming politics. Politics affects tech. But fundamentally, we are seeing something as earth-shaking as the Industrial Revolution, but instead of being compressed, extended over several generations, it’s happening on a much more rapid time scale. And while the Industrial Revolution started in just a few places and only rather gradually spread across the world, the information era has moved much more quickly. So you have political crisis in a country like India where a billion people are on cell phones in the last, what, 10 or 12 years, and this has changed their relationship toward government, changed their relationship toward how they perceive the world, their own life chances, and so on. And so governments everywhere are sort of trying to run ahead of this massive change in public expectation, economic, social institutions. Of all illusions, the belief that we could somehow manage this smoothly and without kind of painful and even in some cases very discontinuous change, I think is maybe the greatest illusion of all. Ian, you wanted to jump in?

Alessandra Galloni: I don’t know. That was my word.

Allison Schrager: I just want to add, I mean, I think a lot of economists are sort of shaking their heads that everyone is feeling like neoliberalism failed because we’re like, things went pretty well. The world got a lot richer. Even in sort of richer countries, you see quality of life has gone up a lot, but I think, Walter, it’s really the problem. And I wouldn’t even say it’s a problem because I think what’s happening in tech is largely representing a further improvement in our lifestand and progress. But it introduces a lot of uncertainty. It introduces a lot of change. And if we look back at the Industrial Revolution, we see a lot of the same patterns, which is rises in populism. sort of distrust and looking inward and blaming things like trade anyway, trade is really not at fault here. So massive international wars from time to time and domestic revolutions. Yeah. And it took like, people forget how disruptive the industrial revolution was. I mean, we look at it now and we’re like, oh my God, we have indoor plumbing, all these wonderful things. But, you know, it was a tough process and it happened, as you point out, much slower

Alessandra Galloni: and more gradually.

Graham Allison: I think the future, there’s a great book called Future Shock and I’d say accelerated future shock is a big part of the story of what’s happening.

Alessandra Galloni: Dan?

Ian Bremmer: Yeah, I do think that it’s interesting because the Democrats have been so divided over the course of the last year, years. The Republicans, of course, are much more united under Trump, but there are such massive differences in policy orientation between, you know, dark MAGA run by Elon and people that want more free trade and want to deal on China and certainly are more globalist in orientation, the H1Bs, TikTok, you name it, and deep MAGA. Right. I mean, the populace that are scared of the Uniparty, are scared of the deep state as they think of it and believe that all of these people, no matter who they vote for, are just out to screw them. And they want actually, they don’t mind a big state, but they want a big state that’s actually taking care of the average American. That divide is going to be papered over by the powerful personality of Trump, but that divide is not getting any weaker. And the anti-establishment forces in the United States, I think, are growing. I think as you see oligarchs become more powerful, and not just Elon, I mean, Elon’s busy. He runs six companies. He’s got 12 kids. He cares about at least a few of them. I mean, he’s having a great time. There’s only so much he can actually do. But the fact that the oligarchs are becoming so much more empowered is leading to pitchforks. And I was deeply concerned about Luigi Mangione and the way that a lot of people, not just on the internet, but like Elizabeth Warren and others, responded to Almost Lion as, oh, we can understand. Someone that assassinated a CEO a few blocks from where I live. Not only that, and I mean, if the person, if that kid that tried to assassinate Trump had been more charismatic and lived and had a few statements, I think he would have been responded to very differently. So I think what’s being unleashed in the United States right now is not taken care of by Trump with a big win that everyone says wasn’t stolen, not at all. This is gonna get a lot worse. I’m gonna turn to questions, but we have not sort of uttered the words sort of conflict of interest, and I do think we need to just utter it for one second. I mean, is it okay to launch a cryptocurrency

Alessandra Galloni: or to trade sort of political influence to make money? Question.

Graham Allison: Is that something that concerns anybody? I would say we’re in a new world in which that’ll become the new normal for a while. And I agree that there’ll be a big resistance to it, but I think looking back at the robber barons and looking at the way that worked is an interesting historical analog that I’ve been looking at lately. And I think you see, I mean, again, you don’t want to normalize Trump, but does Biden enterprises, if you look at the income on Biden enterprises and you look at his pardons, and is it different from Trump? Yes, of course, it’s very different from Trump. The idea of launching the crypto the day before is pretty bold. I think it’s part about people who come, you pay a million dollars to get a seat at the thing, but then you mainly kiss the ring and grovel, but then you’re gonna be bored. Will Musk use his influence to advance his company’s interests? Excuse me, that’s my fiduciary responsibility as a chief executive. So I think it’s gonna be our traditional understanding of conflict of interest. I think some part of this is just more blatant. I mean, Trump is shameless, okay? A person who’s already been accused of all the things that he’s been accused of and you haven’t been able to prosecute him yet, forget about it, okay? Forget about it. So… Walter? And then we’ll open it up for questions.

Walter Mead: The good news is I think we can look forward to an artistic renaissance in America because, you know, I think about how Hunter Biden’s promising artistic career, he went from nowhere to selling paintings for 20, 30, 40… I mean, I don’t know how much he was selling. Now he can get… I’ve never heard of a young artist who achieved so much so quickly. And now, without the pardon, without the problem of crime over his head and punishment, he can paint all day. It’s going to be fabulous. But we are in a new era. In some ways, it’s not a prettier era. Ian’s reminder that it will also be an unstable era and that simply running to join the latest procession, that can get you… That can have long-term consequences. But it’s different now. I think Henry Kissinger used to talk about how Trump was one of the individuals who came along from time to time and to sort of say to history, it was impossible to go on in the old way anymore. And I think here we are. He’s a culmination. I think it was Bill Clinton that taught us all that shame only matters if you let it. That is, if you keep putting one foot in front of the other and you don’t let all those people barking and screaming get in your way, you can move forward. In some ways, the Clinton Foundation enabled money from all over the world to support an operation. But Trump has industrialized it and has really put… a serious business person’s mind to work on this new field of opportunities. He won’t be the last. And I am not happy necessarily with where this is going. But we need to realize, again, the rule keepers, the people who believed in sort of professional responsibility, institutions, and all of those things, fail to do our job of keeping things working well enough so that ordinary people were happy with the kind of leadership and rules that we were providing.

Alessandra Galloni: Walter, we’re gonna get eggs thrown at us unless we allow the audience to ask some questions. I know you said, really, well, people sort of raised their hands. You had a- I just want to change the quote. Shame only matters when we let it, and we have. And that’s why I said complicity at the beginning. I worry that when the institutional order erodes and the Europeans are losers, we let shame not matter. Gentleman at the back, please say your name, if you would, and who you represent.

Audience: Hi there, Ishan Tharoor of the Washington Post. I’d love to get your reactions. I mean, we talked to a certain extent about some of the foreign policy calculations that we have to contemplate, but how important is this kind of coalescing of what some describe as a kind of far-right international around Trump world, the links to the AFD, the sort of lionization of Javier Millet? Is this a kind of important feature of Trumpism in this term, the extent to which there’s a pretty strong, intense feedback loop between Trump’s Washington and ascendant far-right factions everywhere in the world? That’s a good question. We saw some elements even in South Korea, no, recently. Anybody wanna take that?

Walter Mead: The question is the answer in a way, I think. Yes, there are connections. We’re still exploring them. The movements are new and changing, and it’s a phenomenon in a process of evolution and growth. Where it leads, it’s very difficult to say.

Ian Bremmer: I think Maloney is not a part of it. She went to Mar-a-Lago and all the rest. She’s cutting deals with Elon. She’s actually not a stronger version of Orban. Instead, she is someone who is quite close to von der Leyen. And I actually think that there is an understanding to use Maloney to try to figure out a way to ensure that Europe can stay together and deal with Trump. So I think that’s an important one.

Alessandra Galloni: So did you mean sort of at the kind of political level, or did you mean sort of grassroots also, or just among popular? Both. Both, yeah, OK. Right here in the front. And then, oh, sorry, this gentleman here was first. And then, and then, go ahead. If you could speak loudly, it’s a small room. Yeah, OK.

Audience: So Gustavo Pimenta. OK. Gustavo Pimenta, CEO of Vale, the mining company. I was just curious about China, maybe to Ian and others. How do you think China would react to this Trump scenario going forward, especially given the challenges that they are facing these days? Anybody take that?

Graham Allison: And then the fourth row on the left. I think we’re going to be surprised. So Ian and I, we should actually, one of the things I did this year was make lists of things in which I was wrong. And so it’s good to try to be more concrete. So I’m betting this time next year, if we had the good fortune to have the conversation, we’ll be surprised on the upside in the Chinese-American relationship. I think Xi and Trump have a very tight relationship. They get on very well. They understand each other. They both think of themselves as great men. They think of the rest of us as people that come along in the aftermath. They like each other in that respect. So that’s one place to start. Secondly, in terms of their interests, while fundamentally in the long run, this is a Thucydidean rivalry of a rising and ruling power. So that’s where I start. But if I look at the agency and the opportunities for agency here, doing a deal to conclude a war in Ukraine is not hard for Xi to be part of, and something that Trump wants to do so they can do that. Well, Trump’s concerned about trade deficits. What’s the trade deficit with China? 320 or something like that. If I were Xi, I would say, I’m going to take the initiative, we’re going to eliminate the bilateral trade deficit over three years. How hard is that to do? I just buy oil and gas from the US and food rather than buying it from another source. So could I go through seven things I can do that don’t disturb me very much? Yes. And I think in terms of Trump’s deals, for example, I think we’ll see Panama. He will quote, reclaim Panama and control of Panama. The couple of companies from China that are helping to operate the thing will go away. How big a deal is that for Xi? Not a very big deal. How big for Trump? He can declare that he. So I think there’s a lot of deal space here for the two of them. And I think that the fact that Trump tried to get Xi to, I mean, actually, if you watch, this is a good reading between the lines, look and see what Trump said at the Notre Dame after the discussion with Zelensky. He writes a tweet, what happened. And then in the middle of the tweet, it says, China can help. Doesn’t say the UN can help. Doesn’t say Europe can help. Doesn’t say, it says China can help. If you look at his first press conference in January, it says, the US, quote, the US and China working together can solve every problem in the world. I mean, it’s Trumpian hyperbole. So I think I’m looking for the upside. I’m on the other side of this.

Ian Bremmer: I don’t think that’s right. I agree with you. That’s what Trump wants to do. I think the Chinese are convinced that the Americans want to contain them. They have ample evidence of that fact. that is not just true of the Biden administration, that is true of everyone in Congress, and it’s certainly true of Trump’s broader national security complex. So I think that even though Trump is gonna try to move in that direction to a degree, the ability and the willingness of the Chinese to get to a place that looks like a deal in that environment is not propitious. Do I have high confidence in that? Never have high confidence that Trump can’t do something. As Graham said, that’s fair. But I would make a fairly strong bet that US-China relations will be in materially worse condition. Okay, so we have a good, clear bet.

Alessandra Galloni: Good. All right, you have a bet. We’ll come back next year to see who wins.

Audience: Ardem Paraputian from Scripps, La Jolla, California. So 75-plus Nobel laureates, including me, wrote to senators saying that confirmation of RFK Jr. as health and human services in the cabinet is irresponsible, and we think that he’s not qualified, not just that. His ideas are absolutely dangerous to the health of the American population. And I feel like there’s very little outrage out there in the second term. You guys talked about normalizing Trump. But overall, I look at it, and some of the appointments are full of people who are not qualified to do this. And so I’m wondering what some of the confidence that, again, that he could do things if he’s surrounded by people who are not following fact-based ideas out there. Just wondering where the positivity is coming from. Well, I mean, he has some good people, some less good people, but this is what we learned

Allison Schrager: about Trump last time. He sort of puts in these people sometimes. They think he sees something about them he thinks is interesting, and he gives them a shot. He also fires them very easily. So, I mean, that’s the upside. He takes risks with people. I mean, as an economist, I’m actually pleased with a lot of his appointments. I mean, I think even compared to Biden, he is much more sort of mainstream, well-trained economist than we had in the last administration. So I think to say he doesn’t have any fact-based people around him isn’t quite fair. He does have some people who maybe, you know, we should be more worried about. But again. Recall, he fires people very easily, so there’s that.

Alessandra Galloni: Walter, and then we’re gonna close.

Walter Mead: And I would just very quickly say, too, that Trump is, you know, he’s casting a reality show as much as he is appointing a team of experts to actually run things. The cabinet, in many ways, in the United States, has become a ceremonial function rather than an actual decision-making body or anything like that. And in many cases, you know, is Pete Hegseth gonna be sort of in the weeds on all the big issues in the Department of Defense? No, he won’t be. Also, Trump is worried about guarding his right flank. There is MAGA beyond MAGA. There is politics beyond Trump. And he was elected by a coalition. People like RFK Jr. and some of these other appointments that he’s making are represented in that coalition. He’s trying to keep them under his tent while also not necessarily letting them set the pace or control his agenda. We need to think of Trump as a political manager of a very different kind of politics. And I think that helps explain some of the things both that happen and that don’t happen.

Alessandra Galloni: I think that’s a beautiful way to end. I want to say, folks, how lucky are all of us who have been hours after the inauguration to have been able to listen to this panel of experts. Really, I mean, you deserve, really, the round of applause. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we’ll close here. I think that, I’ll go back to what, just to close to what Ian said, that, you know, some are on the excitement side, some are on the fear side. I guess we will see where everybody in Trump’s orbit, nationally and internationally, fits in that big ocean between. So thank you very much. Good. Good. Thank you, Neil. Welcome.

Agreement Points

Trump’s economic policies could lead to higher growth

speakers

– Allison Schrager
– Graham Allison

arguments

Potential for higher growth and inflation

Deregulation and tax cuts could boost economic growth

summary

Both speakers agree that Trump’s economic policies, including deregulation and tax cuts, have the potential to stimulate higher economic growth.

Trump’s presidency represents a significant shift from traditional norms

speakers

– Ian Bremmer
– Walter Mead
– Graham Allison

arguments

Trump’s presidency shouldn’t be normalized

Trump’s comeback represents unprecedented political phenomenon

Cabinet appointments reflect political strategy more than expertise

summary

The speakers agree that Trump’s presidency and political comeback are unprecedented, representing a significant departure from traditional political norms and practices.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that while Trump’s economic policies may lead to growth, they also come with challenges such as increased deficit spending and potential inflationary pressures.

speakers

– Allison Schrager
– Graham Allison

arguments

Deficit spending and higher interest rates pose challenges

Deregulation and tax cuts could boost economic growth

Both speakers highlight the growing political and social divisions, with Bremmer focusing on the Republican party and Mead emphasizing the broader impact of technological change on society.

speakers

– Ian Bremmer
– Walter Mead

arguments

Growing divide between establishment and anti-establishment forces

Technological change driving political and economic disruption

Unexpected Consensus

Potential for deal-making with China

speakers

– Graham Allison
– Ian Bremmer

arguments

Potential deal to end Ukraine war within 6 months

Heading towards trade war and strategic decoupling

explanation

While Graham Allison expresses optimism about potential deals with China, including on Ukraine, Ian Bremmer, despite generally being more pessimistic, acknowledges the possibility of unexpected outcomes due to Trump’s deal-making approach.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential for economic growth under Trump’s policies, the unprecedented nature of his presidency, and the significant shifts in both domestic and international politics.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus on broad themes, with significant disagreements on specific outcomes. This implies a high level of uncertainty about the future direction of U.S. policy and its global impacts under a second Trump term.

Different Viewpoints

U.S.-China relations under Trump

speakers

– Graham Allison
– Ian Bremmer

arguments

I think we’re going to be surprised. So Ian and I, we should actually, one of the things I did this year was make lists of things in which I was wrong. And so it’s good to try to be more concrete. So I’m betting this time next year, if we had the good fortune to have the conversation, we’ll be surprised on the upside in the Chinese-American relationship.

I don’t think that’s right. I agree with you. That’s what Trump wants to do. I think the Chinese are convinced that the Americans want to contain them. They have ample evidence of that fact. that is not just true of the Biden administration, that is true of everyone in Congress, and it’s certainly true of Trump’s broader national security complex.

summary

Graham Allison predicts an improvement in U.S.-China relations under Trump, while Ian Bremmer expects relations to deteriorate due to China’s skepticism of U.S. intentions.

Economic impact of Trump’s policies

speakers

– Allison Schrager
– Graham Allison

arguments

Potential for higher growth and inflation

Deregulation and tax cuts could boost economic growth

summary

While both agree on potential growth, Schrager emphasizes potential inflation and deficit challenges, while Allison focuses more on the positive aspects of deregulation and tax cuts.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to cabinet appointments

speakers

– Allison Schrager
– Walter Mead

arguments

He also fires them very easily. So, I mean, that’s the upside. He takes risks with people. I mean, as an economist, I’m actually pleased with a lot of his appointments.

Cabinet appointments reflect political strategy more than expertise

explanation

Schrager unexpectedly views Trump’s appointment strategy positively from an economic perspective, while Mead sees it more as political maneuvering rather than based on expertise.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around U.S.-China relations, the economic impact of Trump’s policies, and the implications of his unconventional presidency.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate to high, with significant implications for predicting the outcomes of Trump’s second term. These disagreements highlight the complexity and uncertainty surrounding Trump’s approach to governance and international relations.

Partial Agreements

Both agree that Trump’s presidency is unprecedented, but Bremmer emphasizes the need not to normalize it, while Allison focuses more on the political achievement aspect.

speakers

– Ian Bremmer
– Graham Allison

arguments

Trump’s comeback represents unprecedented political phenomenon

Trump’s presidency shouldn’t be normalized

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that while Trump’s economic policies may lead to growth, they also come with challenges such as increased deficit spending and potential inflationary pressures.

speakers

– Allison Schrager
– Graham Allison

arguments

Deficit spending and higher interest rates pose challenges

Deregulation and tax cuts could boost economic growth

Both speakers highlight the growing political and social divisions, with Bremmer focusing on the Republican party and Mead emphasizing the broader impact of technological change on society.

speakers

– Ian Bremmer
– Walter Mead

arguments

Growing divide between establishment and anti-establishment forces

Technological change driving political and economic disruption

Key Takeaways

Trump’s economic policies could lead to higher growth but also higher inflation and deficits

U.S.-China relations under Trump are uncertain, with potential for either increased conflict or dealmaking

Trump may pursue unconventional foreign policy approaches, including bilateral deals and quick resolutions

Trump’s presidency represents a significant departure from political norms that shouldn’t be normalized

Technological change and political polarization are driving broader disruptions beyond just Trump’s policies

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

How will Trump balance pro-growth policies with potential inflationary pressures?

Will Trump’s dealmaking approach with China succeed or lead to increased conflict?

How will Trump’s unconventional cabinet appointments impact policy implementation?

What will be the long-term consequences of Trump’s erosion of political norms?

How will anti-establishment sentiments evolve during Trump’s second term?

Suggested Compromises

Trump may pursue partial deals with China on specific issues rather than comprehensive agreements

Trump’s cabinet may include a mix of unconventional picks and more mainstream advisors to balance different factions

I think six months from now, the Ukraine war will be over.

speaker

Graham Allison

reason

This was a bold prediction that challenged assumptions about the ongoing conflict and introduced a new perspective on potential diplomatic solutions.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering concrete scenarios for ending the war and Trump’s potential role as a dealmaker on the international stage.

Don’t normalize this, right? I mean, first of all, because of the amount of power that he has managed to amass, right? I mean, the Republican Party is his. It wasn’t in 2017.

speaker

Ian Bremmer

reason

This comment forcefully argued against treating Trump as a conventional president and highlighted the unprecedented nature of his political comeback and consolidation of power.

impact

It refocused the conversation on the unique challenges and implications of Trump’s presidency, leading to deeper analysis of how traditional norms and institutions may be affected.

Tech is transforming politics. Politics affects tech. But fundamentally, we are seeing something as earth-shaking as the Industrial Revolution, but instead of being compressed, extended over several generations, it’s happening on a much more rapid time scale.

speaker

Walter Mead

reason

This comment provided a broader historical context for understanding current political and technological changes, framing them as part of a transformative era comparable to the Industrial Revolution.

impact

It elevated the discussion to consider longer-term trends and systemic changes beyond just the immediate impacts of the Trump presidency.

The best way to get it done is not align your foreign policy with America strategically. It’s not support U.S.-led multilateral institutions that he’s not committed to. It’s pay Trump.

speaker

Ian Bremmer

reason

This provocative statement highlighted concerns about potential corruption and the personalization of U.S. foreign policy under Trump.

impact

It sparked discussion about ethical concerns and the potential long-term consequences of Trump’s approach to international relations and personal business interests.

I think it’s quite likely that we’ll see a significant increase in the growth rate. I think the exciting of animal spirits is amazing.

speaker

Graham Allison

reason

This comment offered a contrarian and more optimistic view of the potential economic impacts of Trump’s policies.

impact

It balanced the discussion by introducing a more positive perspective on Trump’s economic agenda, leading to debate about the potential upsides and downsides of his approach.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing diverse perspectives on Trump’s presidency, from optimistic economic outlooks to serious concerns about norm-breaking and corruption. They elevated the conversation beyond immediate policy predictions to consider broader historical trends, ethical implications, and systemic changes in politics and technology. The interplay between these viewpoints created a nuanced and multifaceted analysis of the challenges and opportunities presented by Trump’s return to power.

What will be the long-term consequences of Trump’s approach to governance and international relations?

speaker

Ian Bremmer

explanation

Bremmer emphasized that Trump’s unconventional approach and the complicity of others could have lasting impacts beyond his presidency.

How will the tension between pro-growth policies and potential inflationary pressures play out in Trump’s second term?

speaker

Allison Schrager

explanation

Schrager highlighted the potential conflict between Trump’s growth agenda and the risk of higher inflation and interest rates.

What are the prospects for a deal between the US and China under Trump’s second term?

speaker

Graham Allison and Ian Bremmer

explanation

Allison and Bremmer presented contrasting views on the likelihood of improved US-China relations, suggesting this is an area requiring close observation.

How will the rise of oligarchs and increasing wealth inequality impact political stability in the US?

speaker

Ian Bremmer

explanation

Bremmer expressed concern about growing anti-establishment sentiment and potential social unrest due to increasing power of oligarchs.

What will be the impact of Trump’s approach to conflicts of interest and ethical concerns on US governance norms?

speaker

Alessandra Galloni

explanation

Galloni raised questions about the implications of Trump’s business interests and ethical practices on traditional governance norms.

How will the coalescing of far-right international movements around Trump impact global politics?

speaker

Ishan Tharoor (audience member)

explanation

This question highlights the need to understand the global implications of Trump’s connections with far-right movements worldwide.

How will China react to Trump’s presidency given their current economic challenges?

speaker

Gustavo Pimenta (audience member)

explanation

This question underscores the importance of understanding China’s strategic response to Trump’s policies in light of their economic situation.

What will be the impact of appointing potentially unqualified individuals to key government positions?

speaker

Ardem Paraputian (audience member)

explanation

This question raises concerns about the effectiveness and safety of government operations under potentially unqualified leadership.