Following another deadly shooting in Minneapolis by federal officers over the weekend, Senate Democrats are signaling that they are willing to shut down much of the federal government rather than vote to continue funding immigration enforcement absent meaningful reforms. But even if Congress fails to pass the measure before the Friday deadline, a shutdown is unlikely to significantly deter the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement in the short term.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That’s because the massive domestic policy bill President Donald Trump signed last year, which he dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” made Immigration and Customs Enforcement the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the nation. Under that law, ICE received a $75 billion supplement on top of its roughly $10 billion base budget, money it could potentially tap if its annual appropriations are interrupted. The measure, enacted with no support from Democrats, set aside roughly $30 billion for operations and $45 billion for expanding detention facilities, giving ICE a deep financial cushion as lawmakers clash over its conduct.

Federal funding expires at the end of the week—at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 31—and the House is in recess until February, leaving the Senate with few options to avoid a shutdown if it can’t pass the current measure.  

The standoff intensified over the weekend after the shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident and intensive care unit nurse. Multiple videos show Border Patrol agents spraying Pretti with a substance and pinning him to the ground before the shooting. Moments before the confrontation, Pretti was attempting to help a woman protester who was being pushed by a federal agent.

Following the incident, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Democrats would block a sweeping funding package if it includes money for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection.

“What’s happening in Minnesota is appalling — and unacceptable in any American city,” Schumer said in a statement, arguing that the Homeland Security funding bill was “woefully inadequate” to rein in abuses by immigration officials. He said Democrats would not provide the votes needed to advance the broader spending package if the DHS bill remained part of it.

Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to move forward, leaving Republicans, who hold 53 seats, in need of some Democratic support to pass the measure, which covers about $1.3 trillion in annual government spending and includes funding for the military, social services, and several major departments. 

Read more: Here Are the States to Watch as Democrats Try to Flip the Senate

Democrats are demanding new constraints on immigration enforcement and more oversight of DHS. Some lawmakers have outlined specific demands: requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests, beefing up agents’ training, mandating agents wear visible identification, and strengthening accountability and transparency. 

Several senators who had previously broken with their party to keep the government open said the latest shooting shifted their stance. “I have the responsibility to hold the Trump administration accountable when I see abuses of power,” said Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, who voted last year to end the last shutdown. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, also of Nevada, said agents were “oppressing Americans” and could no longer be funded without new safeguards.

Yet even if Democrats succeed in blocking DHS funding, immigration enforcement may continue largely uninterrupted as ICE is permitted to spend the $75 billion it received under the Big Beautiful Bill over as long as four years. If disbursed steadily, that would amount to nearly $29 billion annually—almost triple its recent funding levels.

By comparison, the Trump Administration’s budget request for the entire Justice Department, including the FBI, stands at just over $35 billion.

The surge in funding has fueled a rapid expansion of ICE’s operations. The agency more than doubled its workforce last year, growing from about 10,000 to 22,000 officers and agents, and launched an aggressive recruitment drive that included signing bonuses and student loan repayment incentives. It has advertised deportation officer positions in at least 25 cities and sharply expanded its detention system.

The new law allocated $45 billion specifically to detention facilities, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem saying the agency would be able to hold up to 100,000 people in custody daily. As of mid-January, more than 73,000 people were being held in immigration detention, according to CBS News.

That growth has coincided with mounting criticism of ICE’s tactics, as viral videos have spread of masked agents detaining people in unmarked vehicles, and reports of a spike in deaths of people taken into custody. But it has also left the agency unusually insulated from the budget brinkmanship now gripping Congress.

Republicans have largely backed the Trump Administration’s approach, though cracks have emerged. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana called the Minneapolis shooting “incredibly disturbing” and urged a joint federal-state investigation, saying the credibility of DHS and ICE was at stake. Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska called for a “prioritized, transparent investigation into this incident.” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said that the shooting “should raise serious questions within the administration about the adequacy of immigration-enforcement training and the instructions officers are given on carrying out their mission.” Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has asked top DHS officials to testify.

Still, voting against the DHS funding bill may do little to curb enforcement quickly. ICE operations are generally designated essential services, meaning agents would continue to work even if a funding lapse forced furloughs elsewhere in the government. And the massive supplemental pot of funding would allow it to continue arrests, deportations, and detention at current levels for months, if not longer.

Where the shutdown threat may have more impact is politically. By tying immigration enforcement to the broader funding fight, which also includes money for the military and social services, Democrats are attempting to raise the political cost for Republicans and the Trump Administration. The pressure could force negotiations over guardrails on ICE or prompt internal reconsideration of its tactics, particularly as public scrutiny grows.

Amid a growing national backlash over federal immigration agents in Minneapolis and other cities, Democrats in Congress seized on negotiations over funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, hoping to rein in an agency they say is operating with too few guardrails.

But after a bitter internal debate and under pressure to avoid another government shutdown, seven House Democrats joined nearly all Republicans on Thursday to approve the final tranche of annual spending bills, including the contested Department of Homeland Security measure, sending the package to the Senate as Congress races to keep the government open past Jan. 30.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The 220 to 207 vote came even as House Democratic leaders and many rank-and-file lawmakers said the bill did too little to restrain Immigration and Customs Enforcement at a moment when the agency is facing a wave of public backlash over its aggressive tactics and its role in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign. The seven House Democrats who ultimately voted for the DHS spending bill were Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Laura Gillen of New York, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Tom Suozzi of New York. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote against it.

Prior to the vote, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and his top deputies, Reps. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California, announced in a closed-door caucus meeting that they would oppose the Homeland Security bill, arguing that it lacked meaningful guardrails as ICE expanded operations in places like Minneapolis, where a 37-year-old mother of three, Renée Good, was shot and killed by an ICE agent earlier this month.

The bill allocates $64.4 billion to DHS, including about $10 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is on par with current levels.

House Democratic leaders sharpened their objections on Thursday, accusing Republicans of refusing to impose even basic limits on an agency they say has grown increasingly unmoored from legal and constitutional constraints. 

“ICE is out of control, and operating in far too many ways in a lawless fashion, and the American people know it,” Jeffries said at a news conference. He argued that Americans deserved an ICE agency that conducted itself “in a manner consistent with every other law enforcement agency in the country,” adding that it was “using taxpayer dollars to brutalize American citizens and law-abiding immigrant families.”

Jeffries laid out a series of changes Democrats said they had pushed for in the legislation but failed to secure: judicial warrant requirements before agents could seize American citizens, mandates for body cameras, explicit limits on the use of force by agents, and a ban on ICE agents wearing masks during operations. He also called for prohibiting agents from entering houses of worship, hospitals and schools and for barring the detention or deportation of U.S. citizens.

“These are the things that we will continue to push for,” Jeffries said. “Today, tomorrow, this week, next week, this month, next month until ICE is brought under control.”

Some of those ideas failed to make it into the final bill. While the measure would fund body cameras for agents, reduce ICE enforcement and removal operations by $115 million, and cut detention beds by 5,500, it does not include outright bans on detaining U.S. citizens or using certain forms of force—omissions that critics said rendered the changes inadequate. Further complicating the debate: the Big, Beautiful Bill Trump signed last summer included an additional $75 billion for ICE, funding that is not affected by the funding bill that passed Thursday.

“These reforms aren’t enough,” Aguilar told reporters. “Their lawlessness has to stop.”

Yet even as many Democrats voted against the Homeland Security bill, others supported it, citing the limits of their power in a Republican-controlled Congress and the risks of pushing the government closer to another shutdown. The issue was especially charged for Democrats in swing districts, who had reason to fear a vote against Homeland Security funding would be used against them in this year’s midterm elections.

Rep. Cuellar, a Democratic member of the Appropriations Committee who helped craft the bill, said his party had secured at least some oversight over the department and curbed the ability of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to unilaterally shift funds. “It’s not everything we wanted,” he said, “but Democrats don’t control the House, the Senate or the White House.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed that argument, warning that denying funding altogether could worsen the situation by handing Trump greater discretion through a stopgap funding law. “The hard truth,” she said, “is that Democrats must win political power to enact the kind of accountability we need.”

Still, other Democratic Senators made clear on Thursday that they would not vote for it. “This DHS budget was never going to solve all these problems or rein in all of DHS’s abuse,” Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut wrote on social media. “But we could demand real funding restrictions in the bill – simply to make sure DHS is following the law – to get our votes. Like stopping DHS from moving personnel – e.g. CBP – out of their budgeted missions; requiring warrants for arrests; restoring training/identification protocols. I know our negotiators had a hard job, but the truth is there are no meaningful new restraints in this bill.”

DHS funding became especially contentious after the Jan. 7 killing of Good during an enforcement operation. Thousands of federal officers have been deployed to Minnesota since December as part of what the Department of Homeland Security has called its largest immigration enforcement effort in history. A week after Good’s death, another ICE officer shot an undocumented Venezuelan man during an arrest, and operations have since expanded to other states. 

Videos of masked agents aggressively detaining people—including U.S. citizens—have circulated widely, fueling protests and sharpening Democratic demands for stronger restrictions on the agency. Further inflaming the issue this week was images of Liam Ramos, a 5-year-old boy who was detained by ICE agents along with his father in Minnesota, prompting strong pushback from local officials.  

Republicans have defended the ICE agents as essential to enforcing immigration laws and protecting public safety. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said Democrats were attacking the “authority, dignity and work” of federal agents rather than grappling with the realities of immigration enforcement. “We either enforce our immigration laws or they are meaningless,” Foxx said on the House floor. “We either give them the support they need to confront and arrest the world’s worst criminals, or we don’t.”

The Senate now takes up the package under the shadow of the approaching Jan. 30 deadline. Failure to act would risk another government shutdown—the second in four months—reviving memories of the last lapse in funding that rattled financial markets and left hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed or working without pay for a record 43 days.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he had reached what he called a “framework of a future deal” with NATO over Greenland, easing a standoff with European allies and backing away from plans to impose new tariffs that had rattled global markets for days.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The announcement, delivered first in a post on his Truth Social platform and later amplified in brief remarks to reporters, followed a meeting with Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Trump said the understanding would avert tariffs that had been scheduled to take effect on Feb. 1 on goods from eight European countries that had resisted his demands over Greenland.

“We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” Trump wrote, adding that “based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect.”

The American President offered few details about what the framework entails. When asked whether the agreement involved the U.S. gaining ownership of Greenland, an outcome he has repeatedly framed as essential to national security, Trump paused before replying, “Uhh… it’s a long-term deal.”

He described the arrangement as a “work in progress,” saying the “deal is going to be put out soon” and that it “gets us everything we wanted, including real national security.”

Denmark, which governs the semi-autonomous island, had earlier ruled out negotiations over ceding Greenland to the United States. Trump did not claim that Denmark had reversed that position. 

Despite the lack of specifics, financial markets reacted swiftly. U.S. stocks jumped after the announcement, extending gains that followed days of volatility triggered by Trump’s tariff threats.

The Greenland dispute has loomed large over Davos this week, dominating conversations among diplomats and executives after Trump threatened countries including Denmark and the United Kingdom with a 10% tariff in February—and rising to 25% by June—unless they acceded to U.S. control of the island. The threats prompted European leaders to prepare countermeasures and pushed markets lower earlier in the week.

In a speech earlier on Wednesday in Davos, Trump made his most explicit case yet for the need for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, while noting he would not use military force to seize it. Instead, he called for “immediate negotiations” with Denmark, even as Danish officials reiterated that they would not “enter into any negotiations.”

Administration officials had signaled throughout the day that a climbdown was possible. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged allies to “sit back” and “take a deep breath,” while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told a Davos panel that the confrontation was “going to end in a reasonable manner.”

Trump’s post suggested that Rutte, the NATO Secretary General who once called him “daddy,” played a central role in defusing the crisis. Rutte did not elaborate on the deal, but told reporters they had a “very good meeting” and confirmed they reached an agreement.

Read more: Mark Rutte—The Man Who Wants to Save NATO

“His Truth Social post is exactly to the point, and I totally agree with that,” Rutte said.

Trump said that Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and other officials would lead further discussions on Greenland and related Arctic issues, including the “Golden Dome” missile defense system that Trump has argued would benefit from U.S. control of the island.

“This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations,” Trump wrote.

President Donald Trump delivered a defiant and combative address at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, using the annual gathering of world leaders and business executives to tout America’s role as the world’s main peacekeeper and economic engine, and make his most explicit case yet for the U.S. to acquire Greenland from Denmark.

Calling for “immediate negotiations” with Denmark, Trump asserted that Greenland was essential to American and global security, even as he insisted he would not use military force to obtain it—his clearest effort yet to somewhat soften the threat behind a demand that has already unsettled NATO allies.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable,” Trump said. “But I won’t do that.”

He added: “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland.” Yet the President made clear that he still envisioned full American ownership of the semiautonomous Danish territory, arguing that “you need the ownership to defend it” and that “you can’t defend it on a lease.”

“This enormous unsecured Island is actually part of North America, on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere,” Trump said. “That’s our territory.”

The comments underscored Trump’s willingness to wield raw power and transactional threats in pursuit of territorial and strategic gains—even at the risk of tearing at alliances that have anchored Western security since World War II.

While Trump insisted he did not intend to use force, he coupled that assurance with a thinly veiled warning: “You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.” That combination of conciliation and coercion came up repeatedly throughout Trump’s remarks. He boasted of forcing NATO members to increase defense spending, even as he questioned whether they would come to America’s aid if the United States were attacked. He described Europe as dependent on American protection but insufficiently grateful for it. “The problem with NATO is that we’ll be there for them 100%,” he said. “But I’m not sure that they’d be there for us.”

Read more: The Most Startling Line From Trump’s Davos Speech

Trump’s speech, which lasted more than an hour, emphasized how dramatically his maximalist foreign policy has shifted the footing of those attending the annual World Economic Forum. Once a bastion of multilateralism and consensus-building, the forum this week revolved around a single question: how to navigate a world increasingly shaped by one leader’s willingness to pressure allies as aggressively as rivals.

Trump began his remarks focused on delivering a triumphant verdict on his first year back in office, calling it “the fastest and most dramatic economic turnaround in our country’s history” and claiming inflation had been “defeated,” the border rendered “virtually impenetrable” and growth set to surpass any previous benchmark. He contrasted his record with what he described as the “nightmare of stagflation” under former President Joe Biden whom he repeatedly derided as “the autopen.”

But what unfolded over the course of his lengthy speech was less a celebration of economic revival than a sweeping assertion of American dominance—and of his own role as its chief architect—over allies, adversaries and institutions alike.

“The USA is the economic engine of the planet,” Trump declared. “And when America booms, the entire world booms.”

“Without us, right now you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps,” Trump said to the room full of billionaires, government officials, and diplomats.

Trump warned that “certain places in Europe are not even recognizable anymore,” blaming “unchecked mass migration,” environmental policies, and the outsourcing of heavy industry for what he called the continent’s decline. He criticized Europe multiple times, even as many of its leaders sat in the audience.

“The more windmills a country has,” he said, “the more money that country loses.”

He urged other nations to “follow what we’re doing” while making clear that noncompliance would carry costs. He boasted of slashing regulations and cutting tariffs on domestic producers while raising them on foreign goods, and he claimed to have reduced the U.S. trade deficit dramatically while securing deals covering 40% of American trade.

The message resonated uneasily in Europe, where leaders have spent the past year struggling to navigate a more transactional and confrontational Washington. Emergency summits, retaliatory tariff planning, and quiet efforts to insulate European industries from American pressure have become a staple of the diplomatic calendar since Trump returned to office.

Nowhere was that tension clearer than when Trump turned to Greenland. “No nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States,” he said, recounting how American forces defended the island during World War II before returning it to Denmark, a decision he now questioned. “How ungrateful are they now?” he added. At various points, Trump appeared to confuse Greenland with Iceland. “Iceland has already cost us a lot of money,” he said, a reference to the stock market’s recent dip. By the end of his address, the U.S. stock market had risen following his assurances that no military action would be used to acquire Greenland.

The comments came amid a growing rift with Denmark and other European governments, which have rejected any suggestion that the island could be sold or transferred. In recent weeks, Denmark has increased its military presence in Greenland, joined by Germany, Sweden and Norway.

The President’s posture stood in sharp contrast to the thinly veiled condemnations of U.S. policy delivered on Tuesday in Davos by key European figures. Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada warned of a “rupture” in the world order, declaring that the rules-based international system was eroding and that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” French President Emmanuel Macron decried the use of coercion and tariffs to advance territorial ambitions, asserting that Europe would not accept the “law of the strongest” or be intimidated by “bullies.”

Trump responded to their comments by singling out both leaders. He mocked Macron’s sunglasses before recounting how he said he forced France’s leader to narrow the gap between French and American drug prices by threatening sweeping tariffs. “Emmanuel, you’re going to do it, and you’re going to do it fast,” Trump said he told the French leader, recalling a threat to impose a 25% tariff on French goods and a 100% tariff on French wine and champagne if he did not comply. French officials have previously disputed aspects of his account. 

​​“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us,” Trump said, adding that it “should be grateful” to the United States. Referring directly to Carney’s appearance at Davos, he said, “I watched your Prime Minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful.”

“Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump added. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

The episodes served as a broader illustration of Trump’s approach to diplomacy: not as a matter of quiet negotiation among allies, but as a series of public confrontations in which leverage is applied through the blunt use of American economic power.

At Davos, such remarks landed with particular force. Halfway through the speech, a senior Western European official told TIME: “We can’t react to everything he says. We have our values and our interests, and we have to work with the U.S. to protect them. We have to talk. We listen; then we talk.”

Trump’s speech also revisited long-standing grievances and disputed claims: that his 2020 election loss was “rigged,” that he had single-handedly settled eight wars in the past year, and that the war in Ukraine would never have happened had he remained in office.

He touted a deal with Venezuela over oil production, took credit for wiping out Iran’s nuclear program, praised the expansion of U.S. nuclear and artificial intelligence infrastructure, and spoke admiringly of allowing private companies to build their own power plants. Throughout, Trump returned to a central theme: that American power, unapologetically wielded, was the ultimate guarantor of global stability.

“We did a lot of big things, all perfectly executed,” Trump said.

—With reporting by Nikhil Kumar/DAVOS

Eight years ago, when President Donald Trump arrived at the World Economic Forum in his first term, the alpine gathering of billionaires and heads of state waited nervously to hear how a self-described nationalist would address a temple of globalization. He told the audience that “America First” did not mean “America alone,” boasted about tax cuts and deregulation, and charmed many in the room into seeing him as a pro-business disrupter rather than a threat to the postwar order.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

On Wednesday, as Trump prepares to take the Davos stage for the third time, the world is once again waiting nervously—but for very different reasons.

His return to the World Economic Forum comes amid an extraordinary standoff with U.S. allies over his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark, a widening trans-Atlantic trade dispute, and growing alarm among world leaders that the United States has become an unpredictable and coercive power. 

Trump’s address will be the first major speech of the second year of his second term, coming as his approval ratings have slipped at home and backlash has grown over proliferating immigration raids by federal agents. It is also shaping up to be a defining moment for a presidency that has alienated U.S. allies to an unprecedented degree. It will test whether Trump still sees value in reassuring allies—as he did in 2018—or whether he now intends to formalize a doctrine of coercion, using tariffs and threats of territorial acquisition to bend partners to his will. 

Asked on Tuesday for a preview of his address in Davos, Trump told reporters in the White House briefing room that he plans to project American dominance. “I think more than anything else what I’m going to be speaking about is the tremendous success that we’ve had in one year,” he said.

World leaders began the week in Davos with thinly veiled denunciations of Trump’s conduct. Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada warned on Tuesday of a “rupture” in the world order and the end of a “pleasant fiction” in which great powers were constrained by rules. President Emmanuel Macron of France said that Europe would not submit to “bullies” and preferred “the rule of law to brutality.” Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, argued that Europe must build a new form of independence and deepen trade ties with partners beyond the United States.

None of them mentioned Trump by name. None needed to.

Their remarks came hours after Trump posted an AI-generated image showing himself hoisting an American flag in Greenland, labeled “U.S. Territory. Est. 2026,” and shared what appeared to be private text messages from Macron and Mark Rutte, NATO’s secretary general, praising his leadership and seeking a way forward on the crisis.

“Greenland is imperative for National and World Security,” Trump wrote in one post. “There can be no going back.”

The Greenland standoff has upended the opening days of a forum that had been expected to largely focus on artificial intelligence, economic growth, and climate change. European leaders have scrambled to update their Davos talking points to try and contain a confrontation that threatens to rupture NATO.

“Nostalgia will not bring back the old order,” von der Leyen said on Tuesday. “If this change is permanent, then Europe must change permanently too.”

In recent days, Denmark and its NATO partners have taken visible steps to reinforce their presence in Greenland, sending hundreds of soldiers to the island. Greenland’s leaders said they were reviewing civil preparedness plans, including advice that households might need five days of food supplies. 

Speaking in Davos on Tuesday, world leaders appeared to brace for Trump’s address. Carney said medium-size countries would have to band together because “if you are not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Macron warned against “vassalization” and said Europe would not accept the law of the strongest.

Those remarks landed against the backdrop of Trump’s increasingly mocking posture toward allied leaders. He dismissed Macron as irrelevant, predicted he would soon be out of office, and threatened tariffs of up to 200% on French wine and Champagne. He ridiculed Britain for agreeing to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a deal his Administration previously praised, but now cites as another reason the U.S. must acquire Greenland.

The confrontations have made Trump the inescapable topic of a gathering that bills itself as “Committed to Improving the State of the World.” Some 3,000 participants from 130 countries have descended on the Swiss resort town, including 65 heads of state and 850 major corporate executives, according to forum organizers.

The Trump Administration is touting this year’s U.S. delegation as its largest and most senior delegation in Davos history, with five Cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, alongside Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. A sprawling “USA House” has taken over storefronts along the main promenade, offering a visual display of American power.

A White House official said the President would emphasize that the United States and Europe must leave behind “economic stagnation” and the policies that caused it, and that housing affordability would remain a chief focus—a message aimed at domestic audiences struggling with the cost of living.

But Trump will likely also boast about projecting U.S. power abroad, including the recent capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his efforts to stop foreign wars.

He is also expected to expand the remit of his “Board of Peace,” a new organization initially billed as overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction, into a more expansive global body that some allies fear is designed to rival the United Nations—with Trump holding veto power over its decisions. The charter-signing ceremony is scheduled for Thursday at Davos, with invited leaders facing a choice that has become emblematic of their week at the conference: align with Trump or risk being targeted by him. France has already said it will not join the board, and other European governments are deeply skeptical, worried the initiative could undermine the U.N. system.
Democratic governors, including Gavin Newsom of California, have accused world leaders of failing to stand up to Trump and warned Europeans not to capitulate. “You mate with him or he devours you,” Newsom said from Davos.