What to know about the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos

Elite gathering proceeds with deep Chinese Communist Party partnership despite documented human rights atrocities, revealing technocratic governance model that views democratic sovereignty as obsolete obstacle to efficient control

DAVOS, Switzerland—The World Economic Forum's 55th annual meeting convenes this week amid intensifying scrutiny of the organization's priorities, as evidenced by its continuing embrace of the Chinese Communist Party despite documented crimes against humanity—a relationship that critics say reveals the true nature of Klaus Schwab's vision for global governance.

Nearly 3,000 high-level participants from business, government, and civil society are gathering in this Alpine resort town under the theme "A Spirit of Dialogue," even as fundamental questions emerge about whose interests the forum actually serves and whether its technocratic model threatens democratic sovereignty worldwide.

The presence of Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng alongside President Donald Trump, European leaders, and corporate titans including Nvidia's Jensen Huang and Microsoft's Satya Nadella highlights the geopolitical tensions that increasingly define the WEF's influence—tensions that pit nationalist-populist movements against the multilateral consensus that has characterized global governance since the Cold War's end.

"The Sovereign State Has Become Obsolete"

The WEF's relationship with authoritarian regimes must be understood within the context of Schwab's fundamental view of democratic government: that it is inefficient, outdated, and inadequate for addressing complex modern challenges.

In a 1999 Forbes interview, Schwab stated bluntly: "The sovereign state has become obsolete." He argued that humanity needs a "global issue alliance" rather than sovereign nations to solve problems.

This isn't rhetorical flourish—it's the foundational premise of the WEF's entire governance model.

The forum's 600-page Global Redesign Initiative report, drafted after the 2008 financial crisis, explicitly argues that traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations are "ineffective, too bureaucratic and skewed towards the most powerful nations." But rather than proposing reforms to make democratic institutions more representative and accountable, the WEF proposes replacing them with what they call "multi-stakeholder governance."

According to University of Massachusetts senior fellow Harris Gleckman, this represents "the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II."

In the WEF's vision, as the Global Redesign Initiative explicitly states: "the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter." Governments would become just one stakeholder among corporations, NGOs, and other "civil society" actors—with no special authority derived from democratic legitimacy.

The "Agile Governance" Pitch

Schwab and the WEF consistently present corporations as the solution to governmental inefficiency. They argue that the private sector has experience "adapting to a new, fast-changing environment" and can provide "agile governance" that democratic processes cannot match.

In his writings on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab emphasizes that traditional democratic deliberation is simply too slow to keep pace with technological and social change. The implication: we need to bypass democratic processes in favor of technocratic decision-making by credentialed experts and corporate leaders.

While fact-checkers note that Schwab was "only asking a hypothetical question" when he asked Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2017 whether digital technology could become so prescriptive that "you do not even have to have elections anymore," the question itself reveals the thought process. Schwab was exploring whether AI could make better decisions than democratic processes—whether elections might become unnecessary if algorithms could predict and prescribe optimal outcomes.

Brin's response was equally revealing: "You might then further ask, 'Well, why do we need to have, you know, elected leaders at all because you might as well have all the decisions made.'"

Neither man was explicitly advocating for this outcome—but neither was dismissing it as fundamentally incompatible with human dignity and self-governance.

Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Democracy's Replacement

The WEF's answer to "dysfunctional democracy" is stakeholder capitalism and public-private partnerships—systems where:

Corporations become official stakeholders in governance decisions
Governments take a "backseat role" as one voice among many
Civil society provides "window dressing" with limited actual influence
Decisions are made by elite consensus rather than democratic vote

As the Transnational Institute analysis notes: "What is ingenious and disturbing is that the WEF multi-stakeholder governance proposal does not require approval or disapproval by any intergovernmental body. Absent any intergovernmental action, the informal transition to multi-stakeholder governance as a partial replacement of multilateralism can just happen."

The WEF's 2019 strategic partnership agreement with the United Nations grants corporations formal advisory roles in international governance—what critics characterize as privatizing global policy-making and subordinating democratic institutions to corporate interests.

The China Connection: A Test of Stated Values

The WEF's relationship with the Chinese Communist Party represents perhaps the most revealing aspect of the organization's actual priorities versus its stated commitment to human rights and stakeholder capitalism.

Since 2007, the WEF has held an annual "Meeting of the New Champions"—essentially a second Davos—alternating between the Chinese cities of Dalian and Tianjin. The 2025 gathering in Tianjin brought together over 1,700 participants to discuss "Entrepreneurship for a New Era" with extensive CCP participation, continuing a partnership that generates significant revenue for the forum while raising profound questions about complicity in human rights violations.

In November 2022, Schwab told Chinese state television CGTN that China is "a role model for many countries" and that "the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries." The 84-year-old WEF founder made these comments on CCP-controlled media just days before massive protests erupted across China over zero-COVID lockdown policies that confined citizens to their homes under comprehensive digital surveillance.

This praise came despite overwhelming documentation of China's treatment of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. The August 2022 UN Human Rights Office report found that China's actions—including mass arbitrary detention of over one million people, torture, forced labor, cultural erasure, and family separation—"may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity."

The United States declared China's actions genocide in January 2021, a determination echoed by the parliaments of Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Lithuania. Human Rights Watch concluded in 2021 that China is committing crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, with violations including mass arbitrary detention in 300 to 400 facilities, forced political indoctrination, sexual violence, and reproductive rights violations.

Research from the Stimson Center's 38 North program and other organizations documents China's systematic persecution:

Mass detention: Over one million people arbitrarily detained without legal process
Torture and abuse: UN report confirmed "patterns of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment"
Forced sterilization: Birth rates in Uyghur regions fell by over 60% between 2015-2018
Cultural erasure: An estimated 16,000 mosques razed or damaged
Family separation: Hundreds of thousands of children forcibly separated from parents
Forced labor: Detainees subjected to compulsory work in camps and factories

Yet the WEF not only maintains its China partnership but has expanded it, with forum programming that presents China as central to "global cooperation on issues ranging from geopolitics to the climate crisis," according to WEF promotional materials.

The Control Architecture Schwab Admires

When examining what China possesses that Western democracies lack, a pattern emerges in WEF initiatives that mirror CCP governance mechanisms:

Digital Identity and Surveillance: China's integration of facial recognition, health QR codes, payment systems, and movement tracking creates comprehensive visibility into citizens' lives. The WEF's 2018 white paper "Identity in a Digital World" advocated for similar comprehensive digital identity systems to track individuals across all aspects of life—from financial transactions to healthcare records to carbon footprints.

Social Credit and ESG Scores: China's social credit system, announced by the CCP in 2014, monitors and ranks individuals, companies, and government organizations based on behavior, limiting travel and opportunities for those with low scores. The WEF promotes ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) metrics that function on identical principles for corporations—measure, rank, reward compliance, punish deviation—with Schwab writing in 2019 that ESG scores are "necessary" for stakeholder capitalism.

Rapid Policy Implementation: Without democratic constraints, the CCP can impose sweeping changes overnight. For technocrats frustrated by legislative debate and public resistance, this "efficiency" appears seductive. Schwab's praise for China's "tremendous achievements" in economic transformation explicitly references this centralized decision-making capacity.

Public-Private Fusion: In China, meaningful distinction between state and corporate power has been eliminated. The WEF's stakeholder capitalism model moves Western systems in the same direction through public-private partnerships that subordinate democratic processes to elite consensus.

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Adam Schwartz warned in congressional testimony that digital identity systems, especially when combined with central bank digital currencies and social credit mechanisms, could enable "programmable money" that restricts how citizens spend based on government-approved behaviors—precisely what China's integrated surveillance infrastructure already achieves.

The Uyghur Blind Spot and Democratic Accountability

The geopolitical ramifications of the WEF-CCP relationship became evident in October 2022, when the UN Human Rights Council voted 19-17 against even debating China's treatment of Uyghurs—despite the damning UN assessment published weeks earlier.

Muslim-majority countries including Indonesia, Somalia, Pakistan, UAE, and Qatar voted against the debate, with many maintaining deep economic ties to China through Belt and Road Initiative investments. China characterized the vote as "a victory for developing countries and a victory for truth and justice."

"This is shameful," said Michele Taylor, U.S. representative to the Human Rights Council. "The inaction suggests some countries are free from scrutiny and allowed to violate human rights with impunity."

Uyghur advocacy groups expressed outrage. "Some member states have adopted China's genocide denial," said Campaign for Uyghurs Executive Director Rushan Abbas. "They should consider the consequences of allowing one powerful country to effectively have impunity for committing genocide."

The WEF issued no statement on the vote and continues scheduling its Summer Davos gatherings in Chinese cities, sending an unmistakable message about organizational priorities.

North Korea: The Ultimate Control State

Perhaps most revealing of the WEF's actual values was its 2015 invitation to North Korea to attend the 2016 Davos meeting "in view of positive signs coming out of the country," according to WEF organizers. North Korea had not attended since 1998, but accepted the invitation before the WEF revoked it on January 13, 2016—only after North Korea's January 6 nuclear test made the regime's participation politically impossible.

What "positive signs" could the WEF have possibly identified in one of history's most brutal totalitarian regimes?

The answer becomes clear when examining what North Korea represents: the ultimate manifestation of comprehensive population control through technology combined with total state power—precisely the architecture that WEF initiatives would enable if implemented without democratic constraints.

North Korea's Control Infrastructure

Research from the Stimson Center, 38 North, and human rights organizations documents North Korea's surveillance state:

Total Digital Surveillance: North Korea is building what researchers term a "digital panopticon state" with facial recognition technology, biometric databases including photographs and fingerprints of all citizens, and AI-powered CCTV monitoring. The regime has been conducting decades of research into surveillance technologies and is rapidly digitizing its control systems.

Comprehensive Human Intelligence Network: An estimated 1 in 20 North Koreans serves as part of the existing surveillance system, from state security officials to workplace administrators to neighborhood inminban leaders who monitor their communities. Citizens face constant risk of random or targeted inspections involving complete searches of homes and persons.

Absolute Movement Restriction: Citizens cannot travel freely within their own country without permission. Facial recognition systems at train stations check travel documents. The state dictates where people can live, work, and move.

Complete Information Control: North Korea operates a domestic intranet (kwangmyong) allowing access only to government-approved websites and email systems. The vast majority of North Koreans have no access to the global internet. International phone calls are monitored by "Bureau 27" in the State Security Department. Citizens caught using "Chinese mobile phones" to contact the outside world face arrest and severe punishment.

Economic Control: The state controls all commerce, dictates employment, and determines resource allocation. No private economic freedom exists outside a small grey-market that operates at constant risk of crackdown.

Ideological Programming: Citizens face mandatory political indoctrination from childhood through all institutions. The songbun social classification system—a precursor to social credit—determines life opportunities based on perceived loyalty to the regime.

Technology-Enhanced Repression: North Korea relies heavily on imported Chinese surveillance equipment while developing its own software. The regime is implementing 4G networks specifically to enhance remote monitoring capabilities. Digital surveillance complements rather than replaces human intelligence networks, creating layered control that reduces opportunities for corruption or resistance.

Researchers note that North Korea's digital surveillance capabilities remain behind China's due to technical limitations including unreliable electricity, lack of domestic manufacturing capacity, and funding constraints. But the regime is steadily moving toward comprehensive technological control that, combined with its already pervasive human surveillance networks, "could extinguish all but the tiniest freedoms for the North Korean people," according to Stimson Center analysis.

The WEF's Revealing Interest

The WEF's 2015 invitation to North Korea—citing "positive signs"—occurred during a period when the regime was actively expanding its digital surveillance infrastructure and tightening control over its population. The invitation was extended by an organization that claims to champion human rights, stakeholder welfare, and inclusive capitalism.

What the WEF apparently saw as "positive" was a state that had achieved near-total control over its population through integrated surveillance, restricted movement, information monopoly, and the elimination of meaningful private economic activity—the logical endpoint of every major WEF initiative if implemented without democratic safeguards.

The invitation was only rescinded due to international political pressure following the nuclear test—not because of human rights concerns about a regime that operates prison camps, enforces hereditary punishment, and maintains one of the world's most repressive systems.

North Korea represents what "stakeholder capitalism" and "multi-stakeholder governance" actually mean when stripped of euphemistic language: total state control over every aspect of human existence, enabled by comprehensive surveillance technology, with no democratic accountability.

Russia's Invasion: Selective Moral Outrage

The WEF's response to Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine presents a stark contrast to its continuing China partnership, revealing the organization's selective application of principles.

On March 10, 2022, the WEF announced it was "freezing all relations with Russian entities" and would "not engage with any sanctioned individual or institution." Russian President Vladimir Putin, who last participated virtually in January 2021, was effectively banned from future meetings.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered multiple addresses to Davos gatherings, calling for maximum sanctions, accelerated weapons supplies, and international unity against Russian aggression. The 2025 meeting features extensive Ukraine-focused programming, with Zelenskyy warning that Europe must develop independent defense capabilities and maintain unity against Russian threats.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told the 2023 gathering: "Russia is planning new offensive attacks and is conscripting more soldiers and restocking ammunition. There is an urgent need for more advanced support including air defence systems. We must fight for our democratic values—we have to prove that freedom wins over tyranny."

Western leaders at Davos have pledged billions in military aid and have framed the conflict as an existential battle for democratic values against authoritarian aggression.

The Glaring Inconsistency

The WEF's decisive action against Russia raises obvious questions about its continuing China partnership:

Scale of Atrocities: Russia's invasion has caused tens of thousands of casualties and massive displacement. China's systematic persecution of Uyghurs involves over one million people detained, with actions the UN characterized as potentially constituting crimes against humanity—a determination more severe than applied to Russia's Ukraine operations.

Duration and Deliberation: Russia's invasion began in February 2022. China's Xinjiang crackdown began in 2014 and continues today, representing a decade-long systematic campaign. The WEF maintained and expanded its China partnership throughout this entire period.

Democratic Values: The WEF frames opposition to Russia as defending "democratic values" and proving "freedom wins over tyranny." Yet the organization continues partnering with China, whose one-party authoritarian system is far more comprehensive and entrenched than Russia's hybrid regime.

Economic Incentives: The key difference appears to be economic rather than ethical. China represents a massive market and the WEF's Summer Davos generates significant revenue and provides access to Chinese officials and companies. Russia, while important, is economically smaller and—crucially—already faced Western sanctions that made association politically costly.

The selective outrage reveals that the WEF's principles are negotiable based on economic considerations and political convenience, not consistent application of human rights standards.

The Architecture of Transnational Power

The WEF's influence extends far beyond its annual meetings through multiple mechanisms that convert elite consensus into tangible policy outcomes without democratic authorization.

Corporate Membership and Agenda-Setting: Approximately 1,000 member companies pay annual fees ranging from $60,000 for basic membership to $600,000 for "Strategic Partner" status. Partners including BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Google, Microsoft, and Goldman Sachs gain privileged access to shape the forum's agenda and co-author policy recommendations later presented to governments as international standards.

Research from the University of Zurich identified a "super-entity" of 147 tightly interconnected corporations controlling 40 percent of global corporate wealth, with WEF Strategic Partners disproportionately represented in this network. The interlocking directorates create coordination mechanisms operating independently of market competition or democratic oversight.

Young Global Leaders Program: Perhaps no WEF initiative generates more controversy than this talent identification system, which has selected more than 1,400 individuals under age 40 since 1993. Alumni include Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (who recently resigned), French President Emmanuel Macron, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, and Google's Sergey Brin.

Selection criteria remain opaque, described only as identifying "the most promising leaders under 40" through nominations and committee review. Critics note heavy representation of individuals aligned with progressive globalism and technocratic governance, with the program functioning as what researcher Jacob Nordangård terms "visible institutional capacity building for a particular worldview."

Standard-Setting Without Legislation: WEF working groups produce frameworks on topics from ESG metrics to AI governance to pandemic preparedness that corporations and governments adopt as "industry standards," effectively creating binding norms without legislative authorization. The WEF's ESG metrics, developed with major accounting firms, have become de facto requirements for corporate reporting despite no democratic mandate.

Financial Leverage: The "Big Three" asset managers—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—collectively manage more than $20 trillion and maintain prominent WEF presence. Their proxy voting power in thousands of publicly traded companies allows them to pressure corporate behavior toward WEF-aligned ESG goals, implementing policy through private governance mechanisms that bypass democratic processes.

Trump's Return and the Populist Challenge

President Trump's Wednesday address marks his return to Davos after largely avoiding the forum during his first term, when he withdrew from international agreements including the Paris Climate Accord and criticized globalist institutions for undermining American sovereignty.

Trump arrives with an administration pursuing what officials characterize as "America First 2.0"—an agenda that directly challenges key WEF priorities including carbon reduction mandates, digital identity systems, and multilateral governance structures. He is accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and special envoy Steve Witkoff, signaling intent to confront rather than accommodate the global consensus that has characterized recent WEF gatherings.

"The World Economic Forum represents everything President Trump has fought against—unelected bureaucrats and corporate elites making decisions that affect American workers and families without any democratic accountability," said a senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Trump's electoral victory, following similar populist-nationalist successes in Argentina, Italy, and the Netherlands, represents what political scientists describe as broad-based rejection of elite consensus on issues from immigration to climate policy to national sovereignty.

A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that majorities in most Western countries believe international institutions and corporate elites have too much influence over national policy, with particular skepticism among working-class voters who have experienced wage stagnation and community disruption from globalization.

The Great Reset and Stakeholder Capitalism Under Fire

The WEF's controversial "Great Reset" initiative, launched in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, continues generating significant opposition from conservatives, libertarians, and national sovereignty advocates who characterize it as attempting to restructure capitalism and governance under the guise of pandemic recovery and climate action.

Schwab's 2020 book "COVID-19: The Great Reset" proposed leveraging pandemic disruption to advance long-standing WEF priorities including stakeholder capitalism—a model shifting corporate focus from shareholder returns to broader social and environmental goals as defined by international institutions and activist groups.

Critics including economist Antony P. Mueller argue that stakeholder capitalism transforms corporate governance into a mechanism for implementing political agendas without legislative authorization. "It's a system where corporations become executors of policy goals set by unelected forums like the WEF, bypassing democratic processes," Mueller wrote in a 2021 Mises Institute analysis.

Research from the Capital Research Center documents extensive coordination between WEF initiatives and major asset managers, which collectively control trillions in investments and have used proxy voting power to pressure companies toward WEF-aligned ESG policies—even when such policies may conflict with fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder returns.

Inequality Persists Despite Decades of Davos Dialogue

Despite the WEF's stated commitment to addressing inequality and creating "inclusive prosperity," wealth concentration has accelerated during the organization's five-decade existence.

Oxfam International's annual inequality report, released to coincide with this year's gathering, found that the world's richest 1 percent have accumulated nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of humanity over the past two years, with billionaire fortunes increasing by $2.7 billion per day while workers' real wages stagnated.

"For all the talk of stakeholder capitalism and shared prosperity, the Davos crowd has presided over an era of unprecedented wealth concentration," said Oxfam International's Gabriela Bucher.

Research from economist Thomas Piketty and colleagues documents that globalization policies promoted by institutions including the WEF have contributed to labor's declining share of economic output in developed economies while generating massive returns for capital owners and corporate executives.

The median compensation for CEOs attending Davos now exceeds 350 times that of their median workers, according to Economic Policy Institute data—a ratio that has more than doubled since the 1990s despite repeated WEF commitments to reducing inequality.

AI Governance: The Next Battleground

Artificial intelligence governance has emerged as perhaps the most consequential issue at this year's gathering, with fundamental disagreements over whether innovation should be led by market competition or constrained by international regulatory frameworks.

Tech executives including Huang, Nadella, and Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis face pressure from forum organizers and European regulators to support comprehensive AI oversight—potentially including mandatory impact assessments, algorithmic transparency requirements, and content moderation obligations that critics argue would stifle innovation while empowering censorship.

The European Union's AI Act, which takes effect this year, embodies the regulatory approach favored by many WEF participants—categorizing AI applications by risk level and imposing extensive compliance requirements that smaller companies and startups may struggle to meet.

In contrast, the Trump administration has signaled support for lighter regulatory approaches emphasizing American competitiveness against China while protecting free speech and preventing AI systems from being weaponized for political censorship.

"The question is whether AI development will be driven by engineers and market feedback or by bureaucrats and approved narratives," said a technology policy analyst familiar with the administration's thinking.

The Accountability Deficit

Unlike elected officials who face voters or corporate executives answerable to shareholders, the WEF itself operates with minimal accountability. As a Swiss non-profit, it faces limited transparency requirements. Its governance rests with a foundation board selected by Schwab, not through any democratic process.

This accountability deficit becomes critical when WEF initiatives influence vaccine distribution priorities, carbon taxation schemes, digital identity systems, and AI governance frameworks—decisions with profound implications for liberty, prosperity, and self-governance.

Constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger frames the fundamental question: "Whether free societies can sustain themselves when major policy decisions are coordinated among elites in private forums, then implemented through administrative mechanisms that bypass legislatures and popular sovereignty."

The Path Forward

As nearly 3,000 participants gather in the Alpine heights, the gap between Davos and the democratic publics whose lives these elites seek to shape has perhaps never been wider—nor more politically consequential.

The fundamental tension between democratic self-governance and technocratic global governance remains unresolved. Supporters argue that complex challenges including climate change, pandemic preparedness, and AI governance require international coordination transcending narrow national interests—and that the WEF provides essential forums for building consensus among diverse stakeholders.

Critics counter that legitimacy in governance flows from democratic consent, not elite consensus, and that the WEF's model of public-private partnerships and stakeholder capitalism undermines accountability while concentrating power among actors who are neither elected nor directly answerable to citizens.

The WEF's embrace of authoritarian regimes—praising China as "a role model," inviting North Korea due to "positive signs," maintaining partnerships despite documented atrocities—reveals what the organization actually values: comprehensive population control through integrated surveillance, restricted movement, information monopoly, and elimination of democratic constraints on elite decision-making.

When Schwab declares "the sovereign state has become obsolete," he's not describing an unfortunate development—he's stating a goal. The WEF's partnerships with China and flirtation with North Korea demonstrate which governance models the organization finds "attractive": those that achieve maximum control with maximum efficiency, unencumbered by the messy realities of democratic deliberation and popular sovereignty.

Trump's presence, along with other leaders skeptical of multilateral constraints on national sovereignty, signals that the era of unchallenged globalist consensus may be ending. Whether the WEF adapts to democratic demands or doubles down on technocratic solutions that bypass popular sovereignty will likely shape not just the forum's future but the broader trajectory of global governance in an era of renewed nationalism and democratic assertion.

The gathering's outcome may help determine whether the post-Cold War era of accelerating globalization continues, adapts to democratic pressures, or gives way to a more nationalist and multipolar world order—with profound implications for economic policy, technological governance, and the balance between individual liberty and collective authority enforced by unelected elites.

What remains certain is that the organization's continuing embrace of regimes committing documented crimes against humanity—while simultaneously claiming to champion human dignity and stakeholder welfare—provides the clearest evidence of what the World Economic Forum actually represents: not a champion of democratic values and human rights, but an architecture for transnational elite coordination that prioritizes technocratic efficiency and centralized control over democratic accountability and individual liberty.

Verified Sources and Citations

World Economic Forum Official Website
"Annual Meeting 2025: Overview and Participants"
https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2025/
World Economic Forum
"Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2025" (Press Release, June 17, 2025)
https://www.weforum.org/press/2025/06/world-economic-forum-convenes-annual-meeting-of-the-new-champions-2025-entrepreneurship-for-a-new-era-9048cec8c1/
San Diego Union-Tribune / Associated Press
"What to know about the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos" (January 2025)
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/
Fox News
"World Economic Forum chair Klaus Schwab declares on Chinese state TV: 'China is a model for many nations'" (November 24, 2022)
https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-economic-forum-chair-klaus-schwab-declares-chinese-state-tv-china-model-many-nations
United Nations Human Rights Office
"OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China" (August 31, 2022)
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ohchr-assessment-human-rights-concerns-xinjiang-uyghur-autonomous-region
Council on Foreign Relations
"China's Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang" (Updated January 2025)
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights
Human Rights Watch
"'Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots': China's Crimes against Humanity Targeting Uyghurs and Other Turkic Muslims" (April 19, 2021)
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting
Human Rights Watch
"China: UN Needs to Address Crimes Against Humanity" (August 27, 2024)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/27/china-un-needs-address-crimes-against-humanity
Al Jazeera
"Outrage as UN debate on China's alleged Xinjiang abuses rejected" (October 7, 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/7/un-human-rights-council-rejects-debate-on-treatment-of-uighurs
Voice of America
"China defends its human rights record at UN meeting" (July 5, 2024)
https://www.voanews.com/a/china-defends-its-human-rights-record-at-un-meeting/7686015.html
Transnational Institute
"Davos and its danger to Democracy"
https://www.tni.org/en/article/davos-and-its-danger-to-democracy
openDemocracy
"Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset" (August 16, 2021)
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/
World Economic Forum
Schwab, Klaus. "We need a new narrative for globalization" (2017)
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2017/03/klaus-schwab-new-narrative-for-globalization/
RDI (Research for Democracy and Inclusion)
"'The Great Reset:' Davos Conspiracy Theories" (December 26, 2024)
https://rdi.org/articles/conspiracy-in-davos/
World Economic Forum
Schwab, Klaus. "COVID-19: The Great Reset" (2020)
ISBN: 978-2940631124
World Economic Forum
"Identity in a Digital World: A new chapter in the social contract" (September 2018)
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_INSIGHT_REPORT_Digital%20Identity.pdf
HuffPost
"Vladimir Putin Banned From Annual Meeting Of World Elites In Davos" (March 10, 2022)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-economic-forum-davos-putin_n_6229df75e4b0e01d97a7043e
PBS News
"At the World Economic Forum, Zelenskyy urges allies to speed up push against Russia" (January 18, 2023)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/at-the-world-economic-forum-zelenskyy-urges-allies-to-speed-up-push-against-russia
World Economic Forum
"Western Leaders Pledge Aid and Support As War in Ukraine Threatens Global Security" (Press Release, January 18, 2023)
https://www.weforum.org/press/2023/01/western-leaders-pledge-aid-and-support-as-war-in-ukraine-threatens-global-security/
Voice of America
"World Economic Forum Revokes Invite to North Korea for Davos" (January 13, 2016)
https://www.voanews.com/a/world-economic-forum-revokes-invite-to-north-korea-for-davos/3143361.html
38 North / Stimson Center
Williams, Martyn and Natalia Slavney. "Digital Surveillance in North Korea: Moving Toward a Digital Panopticon State" (April 2024)
https://www.38north.org/reports/2024/04/digital-surveillance-in-north-korea-moving-toward-a-digital-panopticon-state/
Amnesty International UK
"North Korea, the surveillance state" (March 9, 2016)
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/north-korea-surveillance-state-prison-camp-internet-phone-technology
Illiberalism.org
"Digital Architecture of Control: North Korea's Use of Technology to Consolidate Totalitarian Governance"
https://www.illiberalism.org/digital-architecture-of-control-north-koreas-use-of-technology-to-consolidate-totalitarian-governance/
South China Morning Post
"How Chinese surveillance technology helps North Korea keep its citizens on a tight leash" (May 14, 2024)
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3262581/how-chinese-surveillance-technology-helps-north-korea-keep-its-citizens-tight-leash
Mises Institute
Mueller, Antony P. "The Davos World Economic Forum Is a Corporate Socialism Fest" (January 2021)
https://mises.org/wire/davos-world-economic-forum-corporate-socialism-fest
Capital Research Center
Various reports on ESG investing and asset manager coordination (2022-2024)
https://capitalresearch.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Schwartz, Adam. Congressional testimony on digital privacy and surveillance (2023)
https://www.eff.org/
Oxfam International
"Survival of the Richest: Inequality Report 2025"
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest
Economic Policy Institute
Mishel, Lawrence and Kandra Wolfe. "CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978" (October 2024)
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2023/
Pew Research Center
"Views of international institutions and globalization" (2024)
https://www.pewresearch.org/
University of Zurich
Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. "The Network of Global Corporate Control" (2011)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995
United Nations and World Economic Forum
"Strategic Partnership Framework" (June 2019)
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/
Hamburger, Philip
"Is Administrative Law Unlawful?" University of Chicago Press (2014)
ISBN: 978-0226166315
Nordangård, Jacob
"Rockefeller: Controlling the Game" (2019)
Independently published research on elite networks
Piketty, Thomas
"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" Harvard University Press (2014)
ISBN: 978-0674430006
European Union
"Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act)" Official Journal (2024)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

This analysis synthesizes information from official WEF publications, UN human rights reports, academic research, policy analyses, surveillance studies, and investigative reporting to provide comprehensive context on the World Economic Forum's 2025 annual meeting, its relationship with authoritarian regimes, and the implications for democratic governance and individual liberty.

THE DAVOS ELITE: Who They Are, How They're Selected, and Their Mechanisms of Power

The Composition of Global Power

The World Economic Forum's annual meeting brings together what founder Klaus Schwab describes as "the most influential leaders from business, government, and civil society"—approximately 3,000 participants whose collective decisions affect billions of people worldwide. Understanding who comprises this elite, how they gain entry to the inner circle, and how they exercise influence reveals the architecture of modern transnational power.

The Corporate Vanguard

At the core of WEF influence are approximately 1,000 member companies, each paying annual fees ranging from $60,000 for basic membership to $600,000 for "Strategic Partner" status, according to WEF financial disclosures. Strategic Partners—including BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Google, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Goldman Sachs—gain privileged access to shape the forum's agenda and co-author policy recommendations.

This year's gathering includes nearly 850 corporate chief executives, with combined control over companies representing more than $30 trillion in market capitalization. These executives don't merely attend—they participate in closed-door working groups that draft frameworks later presented to governments as "best practices" or "international standards."

Research from the University of Zurich identified a "super-entity" of 147 tightly interconnected corporations that control 40 percent of global corporate wealth, with WEF Strategic Partners disproportionately represented in this network. The interlocking directorates—where executives sit on multiple corporate boards—create coordination mechanisms that operate independently of market competition or democratic oversight.

Political Leadership: The Democratic Deficit

This year's record attendance of more than 60 heads of state and government, plus hundreds of cabinet ministers, raises questions about the appropriateness of major policy decisions being coordinated in a private forum funded by corporate interests.

Unlike United Nations gatherings or official diplomatic summits, WEF meetings operate under Chatham House Rule—participants may use information received but cannot attribute statements to specific individuals. This opacity, defenders argue, enables frank discussion; critics contend it permits policy coordination without public scrutiny or democratic accountability.

The presence of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and dozens of other leaders conducting parallel diplomacy in Davos while their parliaments debate these same issues illustrates what political scientist Ivan Krastev describes as "the externalization of democratic decision-making to transnational elite networks."

The Young Global Leaders: Grooming the Next Generation

Perhaps no WEF program generates more controversy than the Young Global Leaders (YGL) initiative, which has selected more than 1,400 individuals under age 40 since its 1993 inception as the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program.

YGL alumni include Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, French President Emmanuel Macron, former UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sergey Brin, and Tesla's Elon Musk—though Musk has since distanced himself from the WEF and criticized its agenda.

Selection criteria remain opaque. The WEF describes the process as identifying "the most promising leaders under 40" through a combination of nominations, committee review, and personal invitations. Critics note the program's heavy representation of individuals aligned with progressive globalism, market liberalization, and technocratic governance.

"The YGL program functions as a talent identification and networking system for future leaders who've already demonstrated alignment with WEF priorities," observed author and researcher Jacob Nordangård, whose book "Rockefeller: Controlling the Game" examines elite network coordination. "It's not a conspiracy—it's visible institutional capacity building for a particular worldview."

Once selected, YGLs participate in annual meetings, regional gatherings, and working groups that provide both ideological formation and practical networking advantages. The program creates what sociologists term "social capital"—privileged access to power brokers, investors, and policymakers that accelerates career advancement.

Academic and NGO Legitimation

The WEF strategically incorporates approximately 200 academics, think tank leaders, and NGO executives who provide intellectual legitimation for corporate-friendly policy frameworks.

Universities including Harvard, Oxford, MIT, and Stanford maintain formal partnerships with the WEF, with faculty contributing to white papers and research initiatives. This academic imprimatur lends credibility to proposals that might otherwise be recognized as serving narrow corporate interests.

Major NGOs including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and environmental organizations participate despite criticism from activist members that engagement legitimizes an institution fundamentally committed to protecting elite privilege. These organizations defend participation as necessary to influence powerful actors, though critics note that WEF-affiliated NGOs rarely challenge the fundamental structures of corporate capitalism.

The Media Amplification Network

More than 500 journalists attend Davos annually, with major media outlets including CNN, BBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, and The New York Times providing extensive coverage that amplifies WEF messaging to global audiences.

Media partnerships provide outlets with exclusive access to newsmaking figures, while the WEF gains favorable coverage and the framing of its priorities as "global consensus." Critical coverage exists but remains proportionally limited given the scale of media presence.

The WEF's own media initiatives, including its Agenda blog and social media channels reaching tens of millions, allow the organization to communicate directly with publics, bypassing traditional editorial filters.

Mechanisms of Power: From Consensus to Implementation

The WEF's influence operates through multiple channels that convert elite consensus into tangible policy outcomes:

Standard-Setting and Best Practices: WEF working groups produce frameworks—on topics from ESG metrics to AI governance to pandemic preparedness—that corporations and governments adopt as "industry standards," effectively creating binding norms without legislative authorization. The WEF's ESG metrics, developed with major accounting firms, have become de facto requirements for corporate reporting despite no democratic mandate for their specific formulations.

Public-Private Partnerships: The WEF promotes governance models that blend state authority with corporate resources and expertise. These partnerships—presented as pragmatic efficiency measures—often subordinate public interests to commercial priorities while shielding corporate actors from democratic accountability. The WEF's partnership with the United Nations, formalized in 2019, grants corporations formal advisory roles in international governance.

Regulatory Capture Through Expertise: WEF participants frequently move between positions in corporate leadership, government regulatory agencies, and international institutions—the "revolving door" that enables industry to shape the rules governing industry. Former WEF executives hold senior positions in national governments and international organizations worldwide.

Financial Leverage Through Asset Managers: The "Big Three" asset managers—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—collectively manage more than $20 trillion and are heavily represented at Davos. Their proxy voting power in thousands of publicly traded companies allows them to pressure corporate behavior toward WEF-aligned ESG goals, effectively implementing policy through private governance mechanisms.

Philanthropic Influence: WEF-affiliated billionaires—including Bill Gates, George Soros, and others—deploy foundation resources to fund research, advocacy, and programs aligned with forum priorities. The Gates Foundation's outsized influence in global health policy demonstrates how concentrated wealth can shape international institutions and national policies.

Narrative Control: The WEF's success in promoting terms like "stakeholder capitalism," "the Fourth Industrial Revolution," "the Great Reset," and "Build Back Better"—which appeared in government communications worldwide during COVID-19—demonstrates sophisticated narrative engineering that shapes public discourse and policy frameworks.

The Selection Paradox: Merit or Alignment?

Defenders argue that WEF participants represent genuine merit—they've succeeded in competitive markets and democratic politics, earning their seats at the global table. The forum simply convenes existing leaders to address shared challenges.

Critics counter that "merit" in this context often means alignment with neoliberal economics, technology solutionism, and globalist governance—that selection mechanisms favor those already committed to the WEF worldview while excluding voices advocating alternative economic models or stronger national sovereignty.

The notable absence of populist-nationalist leaders (except when, like Trump, they command sufficient power to demand inclusion), traditional religious conservatives, and advocates for localism or degrowth economics suggests that Davos represents not humanity's diversity but a particular slice of it—secular, technocratic, and committed to market-based solutions to collective problems.

The Accountability Gap

"The fundamental question," argues constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger, "is whether free societies can sustain themselves when major policy decisions are coordinated among elites in private forums, then implemented through administrative mechanisms that bypass legislatures and popular sovereignty."

The 2025 Gathering: Power Under Scrutiny

This year's meeting occurs as the WEF's model faces unprecedented challenge. Trump's return represents a direct assault on multilateralist consensus. Populist movements across Europe and Latin America explicitly reject Davos-style globalism. Even some former allies, including Elon Musk, now characterize the WEF as detached from ordinary people's interests.

Whether the Davos elite adapts to democratic pressures, doubles down on technocratic solutions, or fractures into competing blocs may determine not just the WEF's future but the broader trajectory of global governance in an era of renewed nationalism and democratic assertion.

What's certain is that the 3,000 individuals gathering in the Swiss Alps wield influence disproportionate to their numbers—and increasingly contested by the billions affected by their decisions.

Sources

World Economic Forum, "Our Members" and membership fee structures (2024-2025)
https://www.weforum.org/about/our-members
University of Zurich, Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. "The Network of Global Corporate Control" (2011)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995
World Economic Forum, "Young Global Leaders" program information
https://www.younggloballeaders.org/
Nordangård, Jacob, "Rockefeller: Controlling the Game" (2019)
Independently published research on elite networks
Hamburger, Philip, "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?" University of Chicago Press (2014)
ISBN: 978-0226166315
Financial Times, "The Big Three: How BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street became the power behind the throne" (Multiple articles 2019-2024)
United Nations and WEF Strategic Partnership Framework (June 2019)
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/

World Economic Forum's China Embrace Exposes Globalist Priorities Amid Davos Gathering