Many describe our geopolitical moment as one of instability, but that word feels too weak for what we are living through. Some, like Mark Carney, argue that we are facing a rupture: a break with assumptions that anchored the global economic and political order for decades. Others, like Christine Lagarde, see a profound transition, a shift toward a new configuration of power, technology and societal expectations. Whichever perception we adopt, the implication is clear: leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s mental models, institutional routines or governance templates. Johanna Mair is the Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, where she leads education, training and research on governance beyond the nation state. Security, for example, is no longer a discrete policy field. It now reaches deeply into energy systems, artificial intelligence, cyber governance, financial stability and democratic resilience, all under conditions of strategic competition and mistrust. At the same time, competitiveness cannot be reduced to productivity metrics or short-term growth rates. It is about a society’s capacity to innovate, regulate effectively and mobilize investment toward long-term objectives — from the green and digital transitions to social cohesion. This dense web of interdependence is where transnational governance is practiced every day. The European Union illustrates this reality vividly. No single member state can build the capacity to manage these transformations on its own. EU institutions and other regional bodies shape regulatory frameworks and collective responses; corporations influence infrastructure and supply chains; financial institutions direct capital flows; and civic actors respond to social fragmentation and governance gaps. Effective leadership has become a systemic endeavour: it requires coordination across these levels, while sustaining public legitimacy and defending liberal democratic principles. > Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them > with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways > that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. The Florence School of Transnational Governance (STG) at the European University Institute was created precisely to respond to this need. Located in Florence and embedded in a European institution founded by EU member states, the STG is a hub where policymakers, business leaders, civil society, media and academia meet to work on governance beyond national borders. Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. What makes this mission distinctive is not only the topics we address, but also how and with whom we address them. We see leadership development as a practice embedded in real institutions, not a purely classroom-based exercise. People do not come to Florence to observe transnational governance from a distance; they come to practice it, test hypotheses and co-create solutions with peers who work on the frontlines of policy and politics. This philosophy underpins our portfolio of programs, from degree offerings to executive education. With early career professionals, we focus on helping them understand and shape governance beyond the state, whether in international organizations, national administrations, the private sector or civil society. We encourage them to see institutions not as static structures, but as arrangements that can and must be strengthened and reformed to support a liberal, rules-based order under stress. At the same time, we devote significant attention to practitioners already in positions of responsibility. Our Global Executive Master (GEM) is designed for experienced professionals who cannot pause their careers, but recognize that the governance landscape in which they operate has changed fundamentally. Developed by the STG, the GEM convenes participants from EU institutions, national administrations, international organizations, business and civil society — professionals from a wide range of nationalities and institutional backgrounds, reflecting the coalitions required to address complex problems. The program is structured to fit the reality of leadership today. Delivered part time over two years, it combines online learning with residential periods in Florence and executive study visits in key policy centres. This blended format allows participants to remain in full-time roles while advancing their qualifications and networks, and it ensures that learning is continuously tested against institutional realities rather than remaining an abstract exercise. Participants specialize in tracks such as geopolitics and security, tech and governance, economy and finance, or energy and climate. Alongside this subject depth, they build capabilities more commonly associated with top executive programs than traditional public policy degrees: change management, negotiations, strategic communication, foresight and leadership under uncertainty. These skills are essential for bridging policy design and implementation — a gap that is increasingly visible as governments struggle to deliver on ambitious agendas. Executive study visits are a core element of this practice-oriented approach. In a recent Brussels visit, GEM participants engaged with high-level speakers from the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council, the European Parliament, NATO, Business Europe, Fleishman Hillard and POLITICO itself. Over several days, they discussed foreign and security policy, industrial strategy, strategic foresight and the governance of emerging technologies. These encounters do more than illustrate theory; they give participants a chance to stress-test their assumptions, understand the constraints facing decision-makers and build relationships across institutional boundaries. via EUI Throughout the program, each participant develops a capstone project that addresses a strategic challenge connected to a policy organization, often their own employer. This ensures that executive education translates into institutional impact: projects range from new regulatory approaches and partnership models to internal reforms aimed at making organizations more agile and resilient. At the same time, they help weave a durable transnational network of practitioners who can work together beyond the programme. Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete practice. Addressing the rupture or transition we are living through requires more than technical fixes. It demands leaders who can think systemically, act across borders and design governance solutions that are both unconventional and democratically legitimate. > Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a > commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete > practice. In a period defined by systemic risk and strategic competition, leadership development cannot remain sectoral or reactive. It must be interdisciplinary, practice-oriented and anchored in real policy environments. At the Florence School of Transnational Governance, we aim to create precisely this kind of learning community — one where students, fellows and executives work side by side to reimagine how institutions can respond to global challenges. For policymakers and professionals who recognize themselves in this moment of rupture, our programs — including the GEM — offer a space to step back, learn with peers and return to their institutions better equipped to lead change. The task is urgent, but it is also an opportunity: by investing in transnational governance education today, we can help lay the foundations for a more resilient and inclusive order tomorrow.

The European liberal political family is urging EU leaders to form a pact with Japan, Canada, and South Korea to deter U.S. President Donald Trump and China from exerting undue pressure on trade partners, according to a paper seen by POLITICO. In what is dubbed a “Geoeconomic Deterrence Pact” addressed to EU leaders ahead of a summit in Brussels on Thursday, the liberal Renew Europe group in the European Parliament asks the Commission “to identify and negotiate joint export control agreements” by the end of 2026. The paper will be published late Wednesday and sent to EU leaders. “This pact will map shared critical dependencies (e.g., semiconductors, rare earths) and propose mutual response clauses in trade deals to deter coercion from the US or China. If one country is attacked by aggressive tariffs, all countries should react,” the paper reads. Renew Europe is home to French President Emmanuel Macron as well as the leaders of Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia and the Netherlands. The idea is the liberal group’s response to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s call for what he called “middle powers” to come together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just” during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation,” Carney said. Thursday’s summit was meant to discuss European ways to boost the bloc’s economy but that has been sidelined by the war in Iran driving up energy costs, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán continuing to veto a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine.

With a roar of rockets and bombs, a gasp of international outcry and the death of Iran’s supreme leader, President Donald Trump’s legacy became clearer than ever. He is burying the 20th Century: Its villains, its alliances, its political norms and ceasefires. And he is unleashing a future of uncertainty and disruption with no new equilibrium in sight. Across both his terms as president, and in so many different areas of policy and governance and culture, his signal achievements have been acts of demolition. His Supreme Court appointees struck down Roe v. Wade, ending the seething political and legal stalemate on abortion rights that governed America since the 1970s. His military interventions in Latin America have brought the Cuban government, one of the last surviving Cold War regimes, to the brink of collapse. His tariffs and trade threats have blown apart the Reagan-Clinton policy consensus on free trade, upending half a century of global commercial arrangements and diplomatic relations. His America First worldview and contempt for Europe’s political establishment have increasingly relegated NATO’s charter, the 1949 accord forging the globe’s most powerful military alliance, to antique status. His acts of corporate favoritism and personal enrichment, and his use of the justice system as a weapon of vengeance, have erased the post-Watergate regime of legal and ethical norms for the presidency. And in the first few hours of war in Iran, Trump’s attack killed the enduring leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ali Khamenei, a dictator as cruel as he was ancient. In every instance, Trump’s allies and admirers say he is completing the unfinished business of a generation: doing the work that other American leaders have been too weak or too conventional or too unpatriotic to do themselves. In each case, too, Trump is tearing down old structures and systems without a vision for replacing them. At age 79, Trump is himself a creation of the age he is now unwinding, with a worldview molded in America’s prosperous, socially turbulent decades after World War II. It is not evident that he’s interested in designing the grand policies of the future. Even if Trump had a modernizer’s imagination, there is not too much time left for him to build a new world. Trump has about 35 months left as president – about as long as it takes to make one major motion picture – and just eight months before a midterm election that could sap his power. It is not likely that before he leaves office we will see a stable global trade order, thriving new governments in Havana and Tehran or a post-NATO order of international security that reflects America’s overdue destiny as a Pacific nation. It is harder, still, to imagine that Trump might help lead a hard process of legislative compromise on other issues that have been intractable for decades, like abortion or the national debt — though he may be the one president who could force a grand bargain on immigration. Trump’s opponents have often criticized him for his vacant sense of history: his too-hasty dismissal of 20th Century achievements like NATO and NAFTA and START, his middle school-level commentary on figures like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, his weird public musings about Frederick Douglass being recognized more and more. This philistinism and historical ignorance was at the heart of Joe Biden’s case against Trump. Biden deplored Trump as an insult to the American political tradition and promised to make Washington work, repair broken norms and turn over power to the next generation. His slow-moving, self-admiring, politically dysfunctional administration achieved none of these things. If there was a chance then to build a bridge to the 20th Century, Biden lost it. The next time the country chooses a replacement for Trump, resurrecting the past won’t even be an option. For American policymakers and voters, there’s no longer any prospect of mimicking détente with regimes in Iran and Cuba that are unraveling at this very hour. Barack Obama pursued that aim as part of his own 21st Century agenda; that path is now closed for good. America’s credibility as a trade negotiator and commercial partner is already changed forever; the next president will be unable to restore Bush-era trade relations even if he or she wants to. NATO’s place in the world won’t return to where it was in 1998 just because the next president says the right words about Washington’s commitment to its allies. This is already obvious to leaders looking at the United States from the outside in. “We know the old order is not coming back,” Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said at the World Economic Forum last month. His speech, declaring an epochal “rupture” in geopolitics, was the climactic event of Davos for a reason. Yet for all Trump’s zeal to crush big institutions and enemies and conventions of the past, he has also failed so far to lock in an agenda for the future. Many of his policies — on technology, energy and international security — can be changed or undone with the stroke of a pen, as Biden’s were. Others, like Trump’s landmark tax cuts, are unpopular and face a dim fate whenever Democrats next win power. The variegated coalition that won the 2024 election for Trump, and raised Republican hopes of a lasting realignment, fractured within months of his inauguration. If the 20th Century is finally dead, this country’s trajectory in the 21st is an immense question mark. That is the great challenge Trump has left for the next president. For a visionary successor, it could also be an opportunity unmatched in recent U.S. history.

Børge Brende, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), on Thursday said he is resigning over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “After careful consideration, I have decided to step down as president and CEO of the World Economic Forum,” Brende, who became the president in 2017, said in a statement on the WEF website. “My time here, spanning 8½ years, has been profoundly rewarding.” The forum launched an investigation into Brende in early February after his relationship with Epstein came to light in the latest document release by the U.S. Justice Department. Brende, a former Norwegian foreign minister, dined with Epstein three times in 2018 and 2019, and the two exchanged texts and emails, a reality he denied in November. Following the recent disclosures, he admitted to knowing him, but said he was not aware of his criminal activities and wished he had investigated his background more thoroughly. In the same statement, WEF said that the investigation has concluded, and that “the findings stated that there were no additional concerns beyond what has been previously disclosed.” “We have had a very successful Annual Meeting in Davos behind us, where we engaged with governmental leaders from all over the world like never before … I believe now is the right moment for the Forum to continue its important work without distractions,” Brende added. Brende, who at this year’s WEF Forum in Davos interviewed the U.S. President Donald Trump, is yet another high-profile Norwegian to be drawn into the fallout from the Epstein files. Earlier this month, former Norwegian Prime Minister and Council of Europe chief Thorbjørn Jagland was placed under police investigation. Norway’s ambassador to Jordan and Iraq, Mona Juul, has resigned from her duties, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit has also been caught up in the controversy. WEF said Alois Zwinggi, the forum’s managing director, will take on the role of interim president and CEO.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Her new book, Undersea War, is out later this year. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a thoughtful and stirring speech at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, speaking of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.” Though he didn’t mention the U.S. by name, it was clear Washington’s recent behavior had driven him to this conclusion. The speech didn’t please U.S. President Donald Trump, who went on to call Carney ungrateful and threatened to impose 100-percent tariffs on Canada if it struck a trade deal with China — even though Washington itself has been conducting a series of trade talks with Beijing. Trump appears willing to harm America’s allies in ways that once seemed inconceivable, and threats — as we’ve learned — are his way, with many of them are directed at allies. The threat against Canada, for example, came just days after Trump reminded luminaries at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he was very serious about annexing Greenland. And that was after he’d threatened new U.S. tariffs against European nations voicing support for Denmark. Tariffs for European friends are, of course, already a reality. In late January, the U.S. president told an interviewer he imposed 39 percent tariffs on Switzerland after its president “rubbed me the wrong way.” All of this is why we need to start looking somewhere we haven’t had to before: at the bottom of the ocean, at undersea cables — more specifically, at the U.S. firms owning undersea cables. Google & Co. aren’t just tech giants, they’re now cable giants too. And if the White House were to instruct them to disconnect the nations it wanted to hurt, those countries would find themselves in very serious trouble. The speech didn’t please U.S. President Donald Trump, who went on to call Mark Carney ungrateful and threatened to impose 100-percent tariffs on Canada if it struck a trade deal with China. | Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images Back in the 1850s, when undersea telegraph cables were first invented, they were owned by a small number of pioneering private companies. Because the prospect of international telegraph traffic was enormously appealing, a couple of them managed to attract government backing for their more audacious undertakings. Later on, as cable traffic developed and grew, it mostly became the domain of state-owned postal services, since they were also in charge of telegraph services. And when undersea telephone cables arrived in the mid-20th century, they were mostly helmed by government-owned telephone companies. Nowadays, we have several hundred data cables on the seabed because that’s how the Internet travels. For decades, telephone companies around the world teamed up to buy and operate them. More recently, however, tech companies, television providers and a whole host of other companies solely in the business of owning and operating subsea cables have also joined in. Since undersea cables are expensive and — for the most part — connect two or more countries, such international consortia make sense. Unsurprisingly, some of these consortium participants are American. But these days, some of the most powerful cables being installed have only one kind of owner: a U.S. tech giant. Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft already co-own numerous subsea cables with other firms, but now they’re striking out on their own: Google, the leader of the pack, already operates a cable connecting South Carolina with Bermuda and Portugal, and it’s about to add more, including the only cable connecting Florida and Europe. Amazon will be the sole owner of a new cable connecting Ireland and the U.S., and Meta is working on Waterworth — a massive 50,000-kilometer cable circling the globe. These wealthy firms indisputably have the money, and their assumption that AI will further accelerate data use is also beyond argument. The tricky part is the state of the world. Back in the 1850s, when undersea telegraph cables were first invented, they were owned by a small number of pioneering private companies. | The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images Subsea cables functioned swimmingly during the harmonious post-Cold War years because nations were eager to get along and increase prosperity. In the past three years, however, we’ve received regular and dramatic reminders that people, perhaps at the behest of a hostile state, can damage these cables. That’s why we need to worry about the prospect of a new geopolitical risk on the seabed — the risk that a country may decide to harm other nations by exploiting the cables’ ownership. China and the U.S. already lean on their cable owners not to connect any upcoming cables with the respective other country. And while many Western nations have grown wary of close ties with China, Trump’s recent conduct suggests they should be concerned about data-cable dependence on the U.S. as well. U.S. cable owners are in the business of business, not geopolitics. But if the U.S. president, perhaps enraged by the comments of a European leader, were to tell tech giants to block the continent from the cables they own or co-own, would they really defy his instructions? Based on their behavior leading up to Trump’s second inauguration — where the CEOs of Amazon, Meta and Google stood behind him at the ceremony — it’s safe to say the answer is a likely “no.” European banks and officials are already thinking along such lines when it comes to the dominance of U.S. payment cards like Visa. They have, according to the Financial Times, “become increasingly concerned that US payment companies’ power could be weaponised in the event of a serious breakdown in relations.” Indeed, on Feb. 19,  Britain’s banking bosses will meet to discuss a U.K. alternative. It would be privately owned and backed by the government, the Guardian reports. On the seabed, we also need to prepare accordingly. That includes helping European companies form alliances that can compete with the Silicon Valley hegemons-in-waiting.

NEW DELHI — After a hot, high-stakes week in New Delhi, the India AI Impact Summit closed with big ambitions and a host of unanswered questions. Leaders sparred over who will shape the rules of artificial intelligence, U.N. officials warned against billionaire dominance, U.S. voices urged less “AI doomerism,” and India pitched itself as a serious counterweight to the U.S.–China tech axis. That was the official script. Offstage, the mood was messier: headline speakers dropped out, security cordons tangled with Delhi traffic, calendars clashed with global politics, and one demonstration turned into instant meme material. And in between security checks and summit fatigue, there were unexpectedly charming moments — including the French president prepping for his summit trip by jogging along Marine Drive as if he’d just popped out for a vada pav, the deep-fried potato sandwich that powers much of Mumbai. Here are a few moments that capture the summit’s real atmosphere. STAR POWER, MINUS THE STARS Bill Gates pulled out of his keynote appearance hours before he was due to speak, following renewed scrutiny over his past association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Gates Foundation said the decision was made to ensure the summit’s focus remained on its agenda, with Ankur Vora, president of the foundation’s Africa and India offices, stepping in instead. Jensen Huang, CEO of American tech firm Nvidia, was also absent, reportedly sidelined after catching a bug following weeks of travel. For a gathering meant to showcase global AI leadership, the empty spots were hard to miss — and quietly shaped the question of who was, and wasn’t, steering the conversation. TIMING WASN’T ON THE SUMMIT’S SIDE Was this really the best week to organize an AI summit? The question came up repeatedly, with several reasons cited for why key delegations were not present in full force. The gathering coincided with Chinese New Year, meaning Beijing ended up without top-level representation. On top of that, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his Board of Peace on Thursday — forcing former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to cancel his summit appearance. There was also plain exhaustion. January and the first half of February already bring the World Economic Forum in Davos and the Munich Security Conference, with the AI summit closing out the diplomatic marathon. “I’m gonna put a blanket over my head when I’m home,” said one attendee who made the rounds in both Munich and New Delhi, granted anonymity to speak candidly. THE ROBO-DOG FIASCO One of the summit’s most viral moments came from a demo that wasn’t quite what it seemed. India’s Galgotias University drew backlash after presenting a robotic dog as its own innovation. But the expo showcase quickly attracted online fact-checkers, who zeroed in on a curious detail: the dog was in fact … Chinese. More specifically, it was the Unitree Go2, sold by China’s Unitree Robotics for about $2,800. AN AWKWARD GROUP PHOTO After the inaugural session, a cluster of top AI executives joined Indian Prime Minister Modi onstage for the customary summit photo-op … and briefly looked out of sync. As cameras flashed and leaders raised clasped hands to signal unity, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei appeared momentarily unsure how to join in, undecided between handshake, arm-raise and regular pose before settling on raised, clasped fists. The hesitation was fleeting but noticeable — and was quickly mocked online. For two executives whose companies are increasingly framed as rivals with dueling visions for AI’s future, the body-language blip drew outsized attention. “There’s rarely an incident at a high-profile, onstage international conference like this that literally makes me burst out laughing,” Hudson Institute senior fellow Bill Drexel said, calling it “a very visible representation of a rift.” Altman later said he “didn’t know what I was supposed to do.” Amodei did not respond to a request for comment. WHEN GETTING IN WAS THE MAIN EVENT Navigating the summit sometimes felt like its own endurance test. A mix of heavy security around Prime Minister Narendra Modi, organizational confusion, and unforgiving Delhi traffic made even basic planning difficult. At points, attendees were warned not to come at all or abruptly told to leave. One POLITICO reporter arrived at the designated entrance only to find it closed — and was then redirected to another closed entrance. Inside, signage was poor, crossing the venue could mean multiple security checks, and everyday items like car keys or laptops were occasionally treated as potential hazards. Then again, several Delhi regulars noted that, by local standards, summit week was comparatively well organized. THE AVIATORS ARE BACK Away from the conference halls, Emmanuel Macron delivered the week’s most unexpectedly down-to-earth moment, as he squeezed in some sunrise cardio. Before heading to New Delhi for the summit, the French president was spotted on an early-morning jog along Mumbai’s swanky Marine Drive, dressed in athletic gear and his now-signature aviator sunglasses; the same pair that drew attention in Davos weeks earlier. Bodyguards kept pace as he ran along the waterfront promenade, drawing curious glances from morning walkers. Not everything about the future of AI happens onstage.

Christine Lagarde said her “baseline” is that she will stay at the European Central Bank until her term as president ends in October 2027. “I think that we have accomplished a lot, that I have accomplished a lot,” she said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, published on Friday. “We need to consolidate and make sure that this is really solid and reliable. So my baseline is that it will take until the end of my term.” Her comments come two days after a report in the FT, sourced to a single person “familiar with her thinking,” suggested the opposite. The article triggered controversy, implying that the appointment of the next ECB president could be moved up to deny a possible far-right president in France any say in the matter. President Emmanuel Macron is due to step down in April next year. Lagarde played down suggestions she would be complicit in undermining the independence of the ECB from political influence by going along with any such plan. “The ECB is a very respected and credible institution, and I hope that I’ve participated in that,” she said. Lagarde’s comments to The Wall Street Journal are the latest in a series of carefully caveated statements about her future that have generally left her some wiggle room. She confirmed that she is already thinking about her next move, telling the paper that “one of the many options” she is looking at is to take over running the World Economic Forum. The WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab said last year he had discussed the possibility of her leaving the Bank early to succeed him in Davos.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column These days, Europe and America don’t agree on much. But when it comes to the rules-based order, European and American leaders are in agreement: That order is gone. But is it really gone? The American-led order — Pax Americana — died with the re-election of Donald Trump in November 2024. It was clear that Trump 2.0 would continue and accelerate America’s abdication of the global leadership role Washington had first assumed in the early 1940s.  That, however, is not the same as declaring the end of the rules-based order. And, yet, that is what a succession of leaders, starting with Mark Carney’s much-heralded address in Davos last month, have now proclaimed. “The old order is not coming back,” Carney admonished his audience. “Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised.”  Carney is hardly alone in declaring the end of the rules-based order. In his speech to the Munich Security Conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz similarly declared “that the international order, which is based on rights and rules, is on the verge of being destroyed. I fear we need to put it even more bluntly: this order — imperfect even at its best — no longer exists.” America’s erstwhile allies weren’t the only ones to bemoan the end of the rules-based order. America’s chief diplomat in Munich this past weekend, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, also picked up a shovel to bury it. “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us,” Rubio asserted. “We can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations.” The meetings in Davos and Munich of world leaders have no doubt underscored the reality of a United States vacating its traditional role as the leader of the free world, the main provider of public goods, and the principal champion of a world based on strong security alliances, open trade and the defense of democracy and human rights.  Through tariff policies, threats to invade allied countries, unilateral use of force in Venezuela and elsewhere, Trump’s America has returned to acting like the imperial powers of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Indeed, Rubio seemed to bemoan the fact that this era had ended. “For five centuries, before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding — its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe.” If this is what the United States seeks to offer the world as the new global order — a return to imperialism, empire building, exploitation of national resources, the imposition of Christendom — than surely the rest of the world can be forgiven for saying: No, thanks! Nor did Rubio’s nostalgic appeal to Western civilization as the basis of transatlantic unity go over well. “We are part of one civilization — Western civilization,” Rubio declared. “We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry and the sacrifices our forefathers made together.” “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us,” Rubio asserted. “We can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations.” | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images But for most Europeans — indeed, for most Americans — these are hardly the features that set the West apart. Missing from the list were such essential Western values as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As America celebrates its 250th year of independence, it is remarkable that its chief diplomat seems to have forgotten what made America different — the idea, inscribed in the Declaration of Independence, that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Trump’s America is offering the world something patently unacceptable to all but the most diehard realists, who put their faith in power and its naked pursuit. It is not a world others will want to live in. But that doesn’t mean that the rules-based order is over. Yes, its major powers, led by Russia, China and the U.S., are no longer willing to live by the rules painstakingly developed over the past 80 years. But the rest of the world surely does — not least those middle powers, like Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, India, Brazil and others Carney called to action. On the security front, America’s NATO allies are reaffirming the importance of their security alliances and bolstering spending on new and necessary capabilities. They are supporting Ukraine in ensuring it will be part of Europe, thus depriving Russia of the principal aim of its war of aggression.  New trading regimes are being negotiated among all the middle powers, to reduce the dependence of their economies on the predatory trade and supply-side policies of China and the U.S. Existing and new rules can govern trade among the 40 countries that belong to the EU, the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership, India and others. Together, these countries account for nearly 40 percent of global GDP — far outstripping the U.S. and China.  And there’s nothing to prevent the middle powers from upholding basic human rights, supporting democracy and the international institutions that have evolved over the years to deliver goods and services and protection to those in need. The U.S. may have abandoned its role in leading the rules-based system. But there is every reason to hope that those middle powers that have benefitted greatly from that system take up the leadership mantle instead.

John Kampfner is a British author, broadcaster and commentator. His new book, “Braver New World,” will be published in April. He is a regular POLITICO columnist. “The old order is unraveling at breathtaking pace,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking to the great and good at Davos as they frantically assessed the multitude of storms whipped up by U.S. President Donald Trump. The world has entered a new era built on brute force, and “it’s not a cozy place,” he declared. As far as appearances go, the speech was pretty good, delivered in the near-impeccable English of a man who spent many years with U.S. financial institutions. Yet Merz was still overshadowed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose own speech about the West’s “rupture” was hailed as epoch-making. Not to be outdone, a few weeks later Merz insisted to the Munich Security Conference’s organizers that he wanted to break with convention and give the opening address. With everyone fearing a repeat of U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s menace the year before, the chancellor took it upon himself to try and galvanize. His message: The world order is over; European complacency is over; but at the same time, Europe won’t apologize for its values. It was a speech that stiffened the sinews for what was to come. Make no mistake, Merz doesn’t have the charisma of other leaders. But as Germany approaches the first anniversary of the elections that ushered out the anemic Social Democrat-led government of Olaf Scholz, it may well be that in this new chancellor, the country has found the leader Europe needs for these darkened, hardened times. Merz is no Carney — but the two may have more in common than they realize. A former central banker, Carney certainly looks the part of the leader he’s become, but that wasn’t always the case. In early 2025, staring into an abyss, Canada’s Liberals decided to dump then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Then, just weeks after taking over, Carney called a general election and, against the odds, defeated populist conservative Pierre Poilievre.  The person he really had to thank, however, was the incoming president south of the border who, after just a few months in office, had already vowed to absorb Canada as the 51st U.S. state. These are trying times for those who refuse to kowtow to Trump, but for Carney, they appear to be paying dividends — his approval ratings are now at their highest since he took office in March 2025. So, might the same happen to fellow centrist and ally Merz?  Unfortunately, there are a lot of things working against the German leader. For one, his party’s polling ratings remain doggedly low. The first poll of 2026 showed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) extending its overall lead to 27 percent of the vote, while Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) came in at 24 percent. The chancellor’s personal popularity remains in the doldrums as well, as only 23 percent satisfied with him, and even among CDU supporters, only just over half approve of their own leader. Then, there is the fact that steadfastness in dealing with Trump’s vagaries — not to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin’s and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s — doesn’t necessarily insulate one from disenchantment back home. Something British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are finding out to their cost. For sure, Merz faces headwinds: Economic growth is forecast at around 1 percent in 2026 — which is better than the anaemic 0.2 percent of 2025 but still a far cry from the powerhouse of old. Consumer spending remains stubbornly low, and insolvencies are at their highest in a decade. In a letter to his party at the start of the year, Merz wrote that the economy was in a “very critical state.” The coalition, he said, would “have to concentrate on making the right political and legal decisions to drastically improve the economic conditions,” and that labor costs, energy costs, bureaucratic hurdles and tax burdens are all too high. “We will need to work on this together,” he concluded. But his coalition is struggling to do so, turning the much-vaunted “Autumn of Reforms” into a damp squib. Yet Merz was still overshadowed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose own speech about the West’s “rupture” was hailed as epoch-making. | Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images Moreover, many of the changes Merz would like to introduce — his latest bugbears are part-time work and Germans’ propensity to call in sick — are fiercely opposed by his coalition partners, the Social Democrats (SPD), which continue to cling to the welfarist view of yesteryear. In any case, Germany’s problems go even deeper: Putin’s invasion of Ukraine exposed an overreliance on Russian gas, which has proven rather expensive to move away from. Trump’s tariffs compromised Germany’s export-driven model. And now China’s overtaking Germany in several sectors it once provided a willing market for — notably cars. One thing working in Merz’s favor, however, is that compared to the far more embattled Starmer and Macron, he at least has money to spend. Of course, it’s not all perfect: Statistics for 2025 show the government’s been struggling to implement its plans to inject half-a-trillion euros into infrastructure over the long term, and there’s considerable concern over how this money will be spent. The Council of Economic Experts, which provides independent advice to ministers, has warned the government is at risk of “squandering” its investment, as it’s been using too much of the new funds to pay for pensions and social spending. But that’s a nice problem to have compared to others in Europe.  Finally, one date in the diary is filling Merz — and the leaders of Germany’s other mainstream parties — with trepidation: Sept. 6, when voters in the eastern state of Saxony Anhalt cast their ballots. One of the quirks of German politics is that the country’s in a permanent state of electioneering, with several regional elections per year. And ahead of the Saxony Anhalt vote, the AfD is currently at around 39 percent, with the CDU trailing at 26 percent, followed by the Left Party at11 percent, and the once-mighty SPD hitting rock bottom at 8 percent. One thing working in Merz’s favor, however, is that compared to the far more embattled Starmer and Macron, he at least has money to spend. | Pool photo by Stefan Rousseau/Getty Images If the eventual results broadly reflect current predictions, one of two options will come to pass: Either the CDU will be forced to cobble together an unwieldy coalition with parties it has almost nothing in common with, or the AfD will secure an outright majority, and in so doing, control its first regional parliament and get a seat in the Bundesrat upper house. This would, in turn, rekindle the fraught debate over the “firewall” — i.e. the main parties’ refusal to include the AfD from government at any level. Still, these elections are seven months away, and seven months in MAGA mayhem is a long time. Trump’s threats to take over Greenland even caused far-right parties across Europe disquiet, impelling some to criticize him, and nonetheless discomfiting those who didn’t. So, might voters begin to tire of all the disruption as the economy slowly cranks into gear? That’s his hope. It’s a distant one, but there’s a chance that what helped Carney could help him too.

NEW DELHI — It started as an elite political conversation in an English country house to rein in this generation’s most powerful technology. Now it’s a business dealmaking free-for-all in an Indian megacity.  The annual global artificial intelligence summit, which takes place in New Delhi this week, has grown from 150 to 35,000 delegates in less than three years. In the process, the original motivation for the summit — as a global conversation to agree on safeguards to keep AI technology in check — has been relegated to quiet corners of the gathering. On the surface, the Indian organizers of this year’s event have some aspects of AI safety in mind, at least according to the lofty slogans on street billboards dotted throughout the city. Yet the final summit declaration set to be agreed later this week will fail to include the word “safety,” according to a draft text reported exclusively by POLITICO. After the first two summits addressed catastrophic risks to humanity and threats like job losses and environmental damage, India has instead switched the focus to practical applications and dealmaking. With a White House friendly to the tech bros, a better understanding of how the technology will reshape global economies and a more complicated geopolitical environment, the conversations in New Delhi exemplify a stark shift: The global elite are no longer obsessing about how to control the risks of AI but figuring out who can benefit.  “The summit reflects how the global AI conversation has shifted — from a narrow focus on safety to a broader push for impact,” said Jakob Mökander, director of tech policy at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a think tank that has shaped the U.K. government’s AI policy. “Greater inclusion is a strength, but it inevitably makes focus harder.” For those on the ground in the Indian capital, the gathering will be a marketplace for anyone to sell their version of what an AI-powered future should look like without having to address complex questions over how to ensure the rapid technological advances in AI land in a safe way. Amber Sinha, executive director of digital rights group EDRi, described safety as “very much on the back burner,” a shift he said was already coming into view at the last summit in Paris. Sinha described the shift toward investments as “what we saw play out in Paris last year, and what, in even more stark terms, we’ve been seeing playing out now.” Other participants were less pessimistic. “You can take it the negative way, which is to say: The trust and safety conversation and the open-source conversation is in corners, and it’s sort of marginal and on the edges,” said Mark Surman, president of the Mozilla Foundation, which advocates an open internet and trustworthy AI. “On the other hand, I think what’s happened is … it’s just so big … that the conversation is broken into different pieces.” While top entrepreneurs including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and Mistral CEO Arthur Mensch are expected on stage, political buy-in is mixed. France’s Emmanuel Macron is flying in with a high-level delegation, but countries including the U.K., the U.S. and Germany have a lower-level presence. EVERY COUNTRY FOR ITSELF At last year’s meeting in Paris, the U.K. — the summit’s original organizers — refused to sign the final declaration, in part because of how far it had strayed from the aims on safety. This year the U.K. has got on board with the trade-fair vibes.  A delegation led by U.K. AI minister Kanishka Narayan and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy will try to sell Britain as a destination for talent and investment. “The business leaders joining us in India will build concrete partnerships and secure investment that delivers opportunity for working people in the U.K., India and across the globe,” Lammy said. The U.S., meanwhile, has arrived in New Delhi to sell its AI stack to the world through its AI Exports Program, the administration’s official policy to “extend American leadership in AI and decrease international dependence on AI technologies” — a reflection of its view of AI as a competition between its firms and China’s.  The Trump administration “is very focused on encouraging the success of AI around the world. So this is an important opportunity and a strong showing for the U.S. government,” Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade William Kimmitt said at an event in Washington this month. American companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, are announcing billions of dollars in investments in India this week — stealing a march on the Chinese, as Beijing is only sending a small delegation because the event clashes with Chinese New Year.  The U.S. delegation is led by White House tech policy director Michael Kratsios, whereas Vice President JD Vance headed the last summit in Paris. On Thursday — the day world leaders including Indian PM Narendra Modi, Macron and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are meeting in New Delhi — President Donald Trump is in Washington to hold the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace.  That clash has already drawn former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair away from India, where he had been due to speak. His think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, now bills former U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (an adviser to Microsoft and Anthropic) and former U.K. Finance Minister George Osborne (managing director at OpenAI) on its lineup. The EU, meanwhile, wants both to flex its position as a global regulator and to show it’s open to attract investment. That tension has been on display in recent months as EU authorities implemented the bloc’s flagship AI law while simultaneously rolling back safety provisions through a “simplification package,” after complaints from European companies that the law was too burdensome.  EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s representative at the summit, will “emphasize the EU’s ambition to accelerate AI deployment, scale innovation and work with trusted partners such as India to ensure AI remains human-centric, secure and aligned with democratic values,” the Commission’s tech department said ahead of the event. Some argue the EU could gain traction at the summit for its governance model under which companies conduct voluntary assessments, including with the hosts. The regulatory approach of the Modi government has been “light-touch,” said the EDRi’s Sinha, with India in the lead-up to the summit announcing AI governance guidelines that focus on companies self-regulating. Indian policymakers could take a page out of the Brussels playbook for its code of practice — the voluntary guidelines advising how companies should file risk assessments — “but I don’t see a lot of convergence besides from that,” Sinha said. FROM DELHI TO DAVOS? As the week kicked off, tens of thousands of attendees spent at least part of their Mondays figuring out the Bharat Mandapam convention center — built for India’s 2023 G20 summit — and the adjacent 70,000 square meters in exhibition space. Some attendees faced long queues to enter the venue, while others flagged traffic issues and airport disruptions. Alongside the confusing logistics, questions also extended to the future of the summit series itself, given how far it has moved from its origins. Some argue safety conversations may begin to take place elsewhere. “The summit series evolving to more of a global trade fair will push decisions on global AI governance into other forums,” said Mökander of the Tony Blair Institute.  But Mozilla’s Surman argues the scale of the event in fact allows alternative tech players, coming from the “middle powers” referenced in Canadian PM Mark Carney’s anti-Trump speech at Davos, to find one another. That could give people choices beyond the mainstream tools in a field dominated by the biggest tech players from America. With next year’s summit likely heading to Switzerland, the Davos World Economic Forum — a political and business whirlwind charged with setting the direction of politics and yet widely disparaged as a talking shop for global elites — is a relevant comparison. Another potential model is the United Nations’ decades-old series of global climate summits, known as COPs, which migrate from country to country each year. “We need to choose whether we want to move toward a COP model, with the gradual formation of a body of texts, or toward a G7 model, with one country setting its priorities each year,” said Martin Tisné, a former French government envoy to the Paris AI summit. “Personally I think institutionalization [as with COP] is a very good idea to address the fragmentation of AI governance at the global level.” “By passing the baton from one year to the next, supporting each other and contributing to coherence rather than fragmentation in global AI governance and infrastructure, an alliance is emerging, and it would be excellent news if Switzerland were to take up the torch in 2027,” Tisné said. Pieter Haeck reported from New Delhi, Tom Bristow reported from London, and Océane Herrero reported from Mumbai. Katherine Long contributed reporting from Washington.