Each year, hundreds of world leaders and institutional elites gather in Davos, Switzerland for a five-day summit where speakers and power brokers discuss how to make the world a better place. In practice, however, these conversations rarely escape the elitist echo chamber in which they are formed, and most people go about their day to day not even realizing this forum is even taking place. That all changed this year.
With President Trump back at the helm, Davos became a focal point of global attention as news outlets, analysts, and policymakers closely followed remarks that directly challenged decades of globalist orthodoxy. Trump did not simply criticize the inefficiencies of international institutions; he signaled a fundamental shift away from them. The announcement of the newly established Board of Peace marked a turning point, offering a glimpse into what is replacing the old globalist model rather than merely opposing it.
Globalism Was Never Going To Work
The failures and limits of globalism and collectivism were bound to be exposed sooner or later. Institutions like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum accumulated influence throughout the years without real legal enforcement, authority without real accountability, and moral language without real leverage. In moments of stability, this arrangement appeared functional, some may argue even “neutral”. In moments of crisis, the institutions that shaped countless political science careers and degrees simply collapsed.
The COVID-19 pandemic, prolonged conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, global supply chain breakdowns, the persistence of terrorism, and the unwillingness of international institutions to consistently confront authoritarian regimes, often while granting them continued legitimacy through global boards and forums, revealed a central flaw.
Global institutions have always been very good at hosting meetings and issuing statements. But what they consistently failed to do was act, each and every time something major happened. They could not enforce compliance, respond with urgency, or produce real results when it mattered most– they realistically lacked legal enforcement beyond the laws already established within each sovereign nation-state. As crises mounted, countries stopped waiting for the globalists to take action, so they either acted on their own or continued with their unsustainable status quo. Supply chains were broken and/or rebuilt. Borders were enforced. National security interests took priority over hollow consensus. Globalism became slowly sidelined as nations realized it no longer worked. President Trump’s return to the national and global stage reflects that shift. He isn’t trying to fix globalism, he’s replacing it by making it obsolete.
The Board of Peace and a New Model of Governance
While the Board of Peace does not seek to formally replace the United Nations, it exposes the limitations of the existing system.The establishment of the Board of Peace marks a deliberate break from the post Cold War model of international “diplomatic” cooperation, which has proven largely weak in practice. Decades of global humanitarian engagement failed to deliver peace, self-governance, or security for Palestinians in Gaza or for Israelis across the region. Aid flowed without oversight, terrorist leadership remained entrenched, and international institutions avoided the central reality that peace cannot coexist with armed extremist control. Unlike legacy institutions, the Board is security focused, outcome driven, and aimed at achieving real, lasting postwar stabilization and reconstruction in conflict zones like Gaza.
The Board of Peace approaches Gaza differently. Reconstruction is conditioned on the removal of Hamas from power and the creation of a governing structure capable of peaceful coexistence with Israel. This framework has the support of Israel and several regional partners, including Middle Eastern countries genuinely committed to expanding peace. Unlike years of UN resolutions and symbolic condemnations, this approach is grounded in enforcement and shared strategic interests that make lasting peace possible, including a reintegration into the free markets.
This shift reflects a much larger change in how power actually works in today’s post-Trump world. Influence no longer comes from who has a seat at elite forums or whose sponsorship logo appears on a conference badge. It comes from who controls resources, enforces borders, and maintains real relationships with leaders who actually govern their countries. Sovereignty, and Western dominance, are no longer treated as institutional inconveniences, but as the foundation for any cooperation that actually lasts.
Chess, Not Checkers
Trump’s approach to global leadership is not about chasing consensus or reviving institutions that have already proven they no longer work, it’s about establishing real life proof that whatever conflict was once considered impossible is now possible to resolve. Establishing the Board of Peace outside traditional global channels is not an act of defiance, but a signal that relevance now comes from results, not participation in outdated systems. World leaders understand this instinctively. Trump’s handling of Venezuela reinforced that reality, restoring pressure where global institutions spent years talking without acting and making it clear that instability would no longer be managed indefinitely. His instincts align with how power actually functions, and in international politics, credibility follows results. For investors, that kind of clarity matters far more than statements or resolutions that carry no consequences.
The economic implications are immediate. As security improves, capital moves. When borders are enforced and rules are clear, investment follows, supply chains stabilize, and industrial growth becomes viable again. The Board of Peace sends a direct message to markets that stability will be enforced, not negotiated endlessly. For Latin American business leaders, this shift is especially consequential. The region has spent decades operating under weak and corrupt institutions, cartel influence, political volatility, and foreign dependency that suffocate growth and raise risk. A U.S.-led framework that prioritizes security, enforceable cooperation, and sovereignty changes the investment environment in real terms. It lowers risk, restores confidence, and creates conditions where long-term capital, infrastructure, and legitimate enterprise can finally take root.
The End of the Globalist Era
This moment reflects a broader shift in how influence is exercised and how economic leadership is shaped. For years, global decision-making was filtered through institutions increasingly detached from the realities faced by businesses operating across borders, particularly throughout Latin America. That disconnect left leaders managing political risk, instability, and uncertainty largely on their own.
What is emerging now alters that dynamic. As security and enforceable frameworks regain priority, predictability returns to regions long defined by volatility. For Hispanic business leaders operating in the United States and Latin America, this shift recalibrates risk, reshapes opportunity, and restores conditions where long-term investment and serious enterprise can once again take hold. And that, more than any speech delivered in Davos, explains why the globalist era no longer commands the world’s attention.
Each year, hundreds of world leaders and institutional elites gather in Davos, Switzerland for a five-day summit where speakers and power brokers discuss how to make the world a better place. In practice, however, these conversations rarely escape the elitist echo chamber in which they are formed, and most people go about their day to day not even realizing this forum is even taking place. That all changed this year.
With President Trump back at the helm, Davos became a focal point of global attention as news outlets, analysts, and policymakers closely followed remarks that directly challenged decades of globalist orthodoxy. Trump did not simply criticize the inefficiencies of international institutions; he signaled a fundamental shift away from them. The announcement of the newly established Board of Peace marked a turning point, offering a glimpse into what is replacing the old globalist model rather than merely opposing it.
Globalism Was Never Going To Work
The failures and limits of globalism and collectivism were bound to be exposed sooner or later. Institutions like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum accumulated influence throughout the years without real legal enforcement, authority without real accountability, and moral language without real leverage. In moments of stability, this arrangement appeared functional, some may argue even “neutral”. In moments of crisis, the institutions that shaped countless political science careers and degrees simply collapsed.
The COVID-19 pandemic, prolonged conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, global supply chain breakdowns, the persistence of terrorism, and the unwillingness of international institutions to consistently confront authoritarian regimes, often while granting them continued legitimacy through global boards and forums, revealed a central flaw.
Global institutions have always been very good at hosting meetings and issuing statements. But what they consistently failed to do was act, each and every time something major happened. They could not enforce compliance, respond with urgency, or produce real results when it mattered most– they realistically lacked legal enforcement beyond the laws already established within each sovereign nation-state. As crises mounted, countries stopped waiting for the globalists to take action, so they either acted on their own or continued with their unsustainable status quo. Supply chains were broken and/or rebuilt. Borders were enforced. National security interests took priority over hollow consensus. Globalism became slowly sidelined as nations realized it no longer worked. President Trump’s return to the national and global stage reflects that shift. He isn’t trying to fix globalism, he’s replacing it by making it obsolete.
The Board of Peace and a New Model of Governance
While the Board of Peace does not seek to formally replace the United Nations, it exposes the limitations of the existing system.The establishment of the Board of Peace marks a deliberate break from the post Cold War model of international “diplomatic” cooperation, which has proven largely weak in practice. Decades of global humanitarian engagement failed to deliver peace, self-governance, or security for Palestinians in Gaza or for Israelis across the region. Aid flowed without oversight, terrorist leadership remained entrenched, and international institutions avoided the central reality that peace cannot coexist with armed extremist control. Unlike legacy institutions, the Board is security focused, outcome driven, and aimed at achieving real, lasting postwar stabilization and reconstruction in conflict zones like Gaza.
The Board of Peace approaches Gaza differently. Reconstruction is conditioned on the removal of Hamas from power and the creation of a governing structure capable of peaceful coexistence with Israel. This framework has the support of Israel and several regional partners, including Middle Eastern countries genuinely committed to expanding peace. Unlike years of UN resolutions and symbolic condemnations, this approach is grounded in enforcement and shared strategic interests that make lasting peace possible, including a reintegration into the free markets.
This shift reflects a much larger change in how power actually works in today’s post-Trump world. Influence no longer comes from who has a seat at elite forums or whose sponsorship logo appears on a conference badge. It comes from who controls resources, enforces borders, and maintains real relationships with leaders who actually govern their countries. Sovereignty, and Western dominance, are no longer treated as institutional inconveniences, but as the foundation for any cooperation that actually lasts.
Chess, Not Checkers
Trump’s approach to global leadership is not about chasing consensus or reviving institutions that have already proven they no longer work, it’s about establishing real life proof that whatever conflict was once considered impossible is now possible to resolve. Establishing the Board of Peace outside traditional global channels is not an act of defiance, but a signal that relevance now comes from results, not participation in outdated systems. World leaders understand this instinctively. Trump’s handling of Venezuela reinforced that reality, restoring pressure where global institutions spent years talking without acting and making it clear that instability would no longer be managed indefinitely. His instincts align with how power actually functions, and in international politics, credibility follows results. For investors, that kind of clarity matters far more than statements or resolutions that carry no consequences.
The economic implications are immediate. As security improves, capital moves. When borders are enforced and rules are clear, investment follows, supply chains stabilize, and industrial growth becomes viable again. The Board of Peace sends a direct message to markets that stability will be enforced, not negotiated endlessly. For Latin American business leaders, this shift is especially consequential. The region has spent decades operating under weak and corrupt institutions, cartel influence, political volatility, and foreign dependency that suffocate growth and raise risk. A U.S.-led framework that prioritizes security, enforceable cooperation, and sovereignty changes the investment environment in real terms. It lowers risk, restores confidence, and creates conditions where long-term capital, infrastructure, and legitimate enterprise can finally take root.
The End of the Globalist Era
This moment reflects a broader shift in how influence is exercised and how economic leadership is shaped. For years, global decision-making was filtered through institutions increasingly detached from the realities faced by businesses operating across borders, particularly throughout Latin America. That disconnect left leaders managing political risk, instability, and uncertainty largely on their own.
What is emerging now alters that dynamic. As security and enforceable frameworks regain priority, predictability returns to regions long defined by volatility. For Hispanic business leaders operating in the United States and Latin America, this shift recalibrates risk, reshapes opportunity, and restores conditions where long-term investment and serious enterprise can once again take hold. And that, more than any speech delivered in Davos, explains why the globalist era no longer commands the world’s attention.
