Trump said the United States could “put a big tariff on the UK” if London maintains the tax, which was introduced in 2020 and applies a 2% levy on revenues generated by large digital companies operating in Britain.

The measure affects major U.S.-based firms including Apple, Alphabet’s Google and Meta.“I don’t like it when they target American companies, because basically, you’re talking about our great American companies,” Trump told The Telegraph, adding that Washington could respond swiftly through trade measures.

“If they don’t drop the tax, we’ll probably put a big tariff on the UK.”The digital services tax has been a longstanding point of friction between Washington and London, drawing criticism not only from Trump but also from his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, who similarly argued that such levies disproportionately impact U.S. technology giants.

The dispute underscores broader transatlantic disagreements over how to tax multinational digital corporations, particularly those with significant cross-border revenues but limited physical presence in foreign markets.

Britain has defended the tax as a temporary measure aimed at ensuring fair contributions from large tech firms operating within its jurisdiction.

Trump’s remarks come ahead of a scheduled visit by Britain’s King Charles to the United States next week, adding a diplomatic dimension to the trade tensions at a time when both countries have sought to maintain close economic ties.

In a joint statement, the groups warned that persistent institutional paralysis, rising protectionism and unresolved disputes risk undermining the WTO’s core functions, including its ability to negotiate new rules and enforce existing ones.

They said urgent action was needed to restore credibility and ensure the organization remains responsive to modern trade realities.

Officials highlighted the continued dysfunction of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, particularly the paralysis of its appellate process, which has limited the body’s capacity to deliver binding resolutions in trade conflicts.

They called for a fully operational and accessible system to uphold rules-based trade.

The statement stressed the need to update WTO frameworks to address emerging areas such as digital commerce, industrial subsidies and supply chain resilience.

The EU and CPTPP members said current rules do not adequately reflect evolving global trade patterns or technological change.

The groups reaffirmed their commitment to a rules-based international trading system, warning that fragmentation into competing trade blocs could weaken global economic stability.

They urged broader membership engagement to advance consensus-driven reforms.

The WTO, established in 1995 to oversee global trade rules, has faced increasing pressure in recent years amid geopolitical tensions and shifting economic priorities among major economies.

Geopolitics, markets, and technology intersected sharply this year, revealing deep anxieties about global stability, economic coordination, and the future of leadership.

The meeting made it clear that traditional alliances are under strain and that nations are reassessing how quickly and independently they must act in a rapidly changing world.

Europe emerged from Davos more united but also more cautious, having learned the cost of confronting U.S. pressure directly. Trump’s controversial remarks and actions related to Greenland crossed long-standing European red lines on territorial sovereignty, prompting rare resistance from European leaders.

While financial market reactions may have played a role in Trump stepping back, the episode badly shook Europe’s confidence in the transatlantic relationship.

European officials openly admitted that decision-making within the European Union is often too slow, and conversations in Davos focused heavily on accelerating collective responses to future crises.

Ukraine briefly faded into the background early in the meeting but returned to the spotlight as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy arrived for high-level talks.

Despite public statements suggesting progress, a peace agreement remained distant, with territorial disputes still unresolved.

The presence of a Russian envoy for talks with U.S. officials, the first such visit since the 2022 invasion, highlighted how geopolitical realities are reshaping diplomatic engagement.

Davos also became a forum for debating potential U.S. action against Iran, with leaders questioning not just the likelihood of intervention but the consequences of regime instability.

Economic discussions at Davos were dominated by uncertainty and concern over rising protectionism. Threats of U.S. tariffs against European allies heightened fears that the global trading system is fragmenting.

Business leaders repeatedly stressed the need for stability, predictability, and respect for the rule of law, qualities many felt were increasingly scarce.

These tensions strengthened arguments for diversifying trade away from over-reliance on the U.S. and building stronger regional and multilateral economic ties.

Financial leaders expressed cautious optimism about growth but warned of policy risks. Banking executives discussed challenges ranging from artificial intelligence disruption to regulatory pressure and consumer affordability.

Warnings were issued about proposals such as capping credit card interest rates, which some leaders argued could destabilize credit markets.

At the same time, crypto executives promoted stablecoins and blockchain as transformative tools, while traditional banks remained divided between experimentation and skepticism.

Concerns about asset bubbles, central bank independence, and long-term inflation lingered over market discussions.

Artificial intelligence was one of the most visible themes in Davos 2026, with major technology leaders making rare appearances. AI companies used the event to push enterprise adoption and reassure investors after months of valuation doubts.

Unlike late 2025, executives now expressed greater confidence that AI investment is moving from hype to practical implementation.

Still, worries about concentration of power, regulation, and long-term societal impact remained part of the conversation, underscoring that AI’s promise comes with complex trade-offs.

Overall, Davos 2026 reflected a world grappling with leadership unpredictability, shifting alliances, economic fragmentation, and technological acceleration. The meeting underscored that while global cooperation is under pressure, the urgency to adapt has never been greater.

The forum ended not with clear solutions but with a shared recognition that the global order is entering a more volatile and uncertain phase.

Global leaders left Davos aware that speed, adaptability, and trust will define the next chapter of international politics and economics.

In a message that resonates far beyond Britain’s borders, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has urged global leaders to view Brexit as a lesson in the value of open markets, adaptability, and economic resilience.

Speaking in Washington, Bailey highlighted the world’s capacity to rebuild stronger through collaboration and innovation.

Brexit, often portrayed as a cautionary tale of economic disruption, is now being framed as an opportunity for the world to learn about resilience, adaptation, and the importance of international cooperation

. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, speaking at the Group of Thirty meeting in Washington, offered a constructive perspective on the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit economic path, emphasizing that while challenges remain, the long-term trajectory could foster innovation, self-reliance, and renewed global partnerships.

Bailey acknowledged that the aftermath of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union brought a period of adjustment for Britain’s trade and regulatory landscape.

However, he noted that such transitions are part of the natural evolution of modern economies. “If you ask me what the impact is on economic growth, the answer is that for the foreseeable future it is negative, but over longer horizons, there should be a positive, albeit partial, counterbalance,” he said.

The governor’s comments were made during the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund, where central bankers and finance ministers discussed global trade tensions and the economic impact of tariffs.

Bailey’s message stood out as a thoughtful reflection on how nations can emerge stronger from periods of change if they embrace innovation, adaptability, and collaboration.

A Lesson in Economic Adaptation

Bailey stressed that Brexit’s true significance lies not in its immediate economic cost but in the broader lesson it offers about adaptability in a shifting global landscape.

“Make an economy less open and it will restrict growth,” he said. “Though over a longer time, trade will adjust and rebuild. And this appears to be what has happened.”

This observation mirrors the experiences of several economies that have faced similar transitions. Businesses, though initially constrained by trade frictions, have diversified supply chains, explored new markets, and reimagined trade strategies

. In the United Kingdom, many firms have pivoted towards technology, sustainability, and regional trade agreements, reflecting a shift toward greater economic independence.

While Bailey acknowledged that the British government’s Office for Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit could reduce Britain’s long-term productivity by around 4%, he also noted that such figures do not account for future gains driven by innovation, global partnerships, and new trade frameworks.

Britain’s expanding engagement with Commonwealth nations, the Indo-Pacific region, and emerging markets demonstrates how diversification can yield fresh opportunities beyond Europe.

The Bank of England governor pointed out that the current slowdown in global trade should not deter policymakers from pursuing openness and cooperation.

Instead, he encouraged nations to invest in productivity, technology, and sustainable development. “The same argument holds for the world economy and tariffs,” Bailey added. “Protectionism may appear to offer short-term relief, but long-term growth relies on openness and trust.”

Global Implications and Economic Cooperation

Bailey’s remarks come at a time when protectionist policies and trade barriers are re-emerging in various parts of the world. The governor’s comments serve as a timely reminder that economic fragmentation can hinder progress. His call for cooperation echoed throughout the IMF meetings, where delegates discussed strengthening global supply chains, addressing debt challenges, and ensuring inclusive growth.

For emerging economies, Bailey’s insights are particularly relevant. The United Kingdom’s ability to adapt to post-Brexit realities underscores the potential for resilience and reinvention in other nations facing structural transitions.

By fostering transparency, investment in innovation, and cross-border collaboration, economies can turn disruption into a foundation for sustainable growth.

The Future of Growth and Technology

In addition to trade, Bailey touched upon broader global challenges, including ageing populations and the slowdown in technological diffusion. He emphasized that governments must ensure that advances in artificial intelligence, green energy, and digital finance translate into tangible improvements in living standards. “Technology must not only increase productivity but also inclusivity,” he stated.

The remarks highlight a growing consensus among global policymakers: the path to economic stability lies not in isolation but in connection — linking innovation with social and global progress.

Andrew Bailey’s reflections on Brexit go beyond a national narrative. They serve as a global lesson in perseverance and transformation. While acknowledging short-term difficulties, his outlook is rooted in the belief that economies evolve through openness, cooperation, and strategic adaptation.

For the world, Brexit stands as both a warning and an inspiration — a reminder that while trade barriers may hinder immediate growth, resilience and innovation can rebuild stronger foundations. As Bailey concluded, “The story of Brexit is not merely about separation; it’s about rediscovery — of what nations can achieve when they reimagine their role in the global economy.”

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.