Watch the conversation with Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos on global economic trends and strategic leadership.
Jamie Dimon framed JPMorgan’s outperformance as disciplined execution rather than mystique: “relentless grit…attention to all details,” admitting flaws quickly, and “get great people, let them do their jobs.” His biggest regrets were moving too slowly on bureaucracy and people decisions—mistakes that “take a long time to fix.”
On AI, Dimon treated it as an acceleration of the long tech arc, but with unusually steep adoption curves: “like the internet but…not going to roll out over 20 years.” JPMorgan has “500 use cases” and an internal LLM used weekly by “150,000 people.” He expects both efficiency gains and deeper reinvention through “agents,” while warning incumbents now face nonbank rivals like “Stripe and PayPal…Revolut.”
Dimon anticipates job disruption but rejects determinism, arguing society may need phased deployment and stronger retraining support to avoid unrest. “We’re going to get the world we got,” he said, urging government-business collaboration.
Geopolitically, Dimon advocated “a stronger NATO” and “a stronger Europe,” cautioning against binary judgments of U.S. policy. On economics, he supported targeted tariffs for national security and unfair subsidies but said, “I’m not a tariff guy in general.” He called a proposed 10% credit-card rate cap “an economic disaster,” and endorsed expanding the earned income tax credit to broaden prosperity.
Hello, everybody. Welcome to this session. Jamie Dimon, a man who needs no introduction. The most successful banker of our era. You've built over the last 20 years, J.P. Morgan, into a bank that I think. And I'm not just flattering you stands out. Bigger. As big as what? The next three US banks combined. In that 20 years, geopolitics has changed dramatically. Economic policy has changed dramatically, technology has changed dramatically. And I want to get to all of those. But let's first start with what was the secret to and very briefly, what's the single most important thing that you did to be so successful at JP Morgan?
First of all, welcome everybody. Thrilled to be here. Look, I made a lot of mistakes. I don't want to equate the secret sauce, relentless grit, all attention to all details. Admit your flaws quick. You know, problems don't age well. You know, reverse course when you're wrong. Get great people, let them do their jobs.
It's pretty easy. Very easy to do. What do you wish you'd done differently?
Would have done differently? If I look back at mistakes I made, it was. And you've heard this from other CEOs all the time. It was too late. You waited too long, you put up with too much bureaucracy or something like that. And then the other thing is people mistakes, you know, they just took it too long to recognize and that takes a long time to fix or something like that. You know, other decisions that we lost money or something like that. I don't worry about that much about that. But those are the two main flaws, I guess.
So it's interesting you waited too long. Let's let's talk about that in the context of the huge technological revolution we're in the midst of. Because and the AI revolution, because you are spending very big on technology and you've been very aggressive. Can you talk me through how you're thinking about AI and how you're thinking about positioning JP Morgan, and what are you actually doing?
So we don't look at AI that different than technology. Technology has always been the thing that changes everything. We all do. That's been true my whole life, my whole career. So we've always had the head of technology at the management table, and we do any kind of business review. What are you doing in tech? And it could be for finance or HR. It says, what are you doing in tech? How are you going to prove your ops. You know, what are you doing? What's better what other people do? AI you know we took it out of tech. They worked close with tech now has a seat at the table. And so whenever we meet, there's a list of AI. What are you doing? AI? So any one of you, if you worked at JP Morgan, you have your list of. What are you doing at AI? What are you implementing? It could be coding. It could be, you know, open AI. It could be, you know, limited systems. We have 500 use cases. And you got to get better at it. You know, it's very fast. It's changing rapidly. You know, we have an LLM where 150,000 people use it internal data every week. And you just got to make it more of your psyche. And I still think it's the tip of the iceberg. I think this one is faster, is massive. It is like the internet but or electricity, it's not going to roll out over 20 years. It's, you know, it's more parabolic for now.
And when you think about the impact of AI, do you think of it as being an efficiency improver? You looking at we can improve things across all of these business units or do you are you thinking that this is going to reinvent what JP Morgan is at a much more fundamental level?
I think it could be both, you know, and so, you know, doing things better, faster, quicker, more. So we have use cases and risk fraud, marketing, errors, customer service, idea generation, hedging. It's used extensively, credit everywhere. But I do think if you take it to the next step, you know, agents that could change your business, the speed at which things happen, how people access our systems. So, yeah. And that that is true for our technology. Remember, in the old days, you know, 40 years ago, you called up to do a stock trade. Now you do it on your iPad and you enter it and it goes through algorithms and it gets automatically executed. So it will change the way customers face us. We have to be very adept at saying, what do you want? You're the customer. How do you want access it. And and so yeah, I think it'll change a bunch.
And when you.
And it may lead to us winning and losing in big areas. So you know I'm.
Poses a threat to incumbents. More are you are you more worried about you know new fintechs coming much more adept at this than you were before.
This is very important. So if you go back 20 years ago, our competitors were Goldman and Morgan and Wells and Bank of America. As you see, they're all doing well now, all of them. But but now we have stripe and PayPal and fintechs and Chime and Dave and Sophie and Revolut and and these are great companies and they're coming at you some to pick a sliver of the business, some to take your whole business. So yeah, I think you have to look at all of that. And if you put your head in the sand you will lose. I think that was true 30 years ago, but I think it's probably more true today. And the brain power and money that's going into this thing is extraordinary. And so, you know, if we don't do our job faster, quicker, you know, yeah, we'll lose too.
And when you when you take the experience you've had at JP Morgan, what does it make you think about the impact across the economy? Are you in the camp that say someone like Dario Amodei is, you know, half of all entry level white collar jobs will be gone in 1 to 5 years. Do you think it is going to be a kind of cataclysmic impact on the labor market?
Yeah, I don't know about that. So as a business person, my view is don't put your head in the sand. It is what it is. We're going to deploy it. Will it eliminate jobs? Yes. Will it change jobs? Yes. Will it add some jobs? Probably. It is what it is. And you can hope for the world you want. But we're going to you're going to get the world you got and your competitors are going to use it. Countries are going to use it. However, I do think it may go too fast for society. And if it goes too fast for society, that's where government and business and collaborative ways to step in together and come up with a way to retrain and, you know, people or move it over time. So you go back. Trade adjustment assistance was supposed to do that. You know, if a town loses a factory, they lose jobs. You have income assistance, relocation, early retirement, retraining. We may have to do that. And I think we're we're doing it ready ourselves.
That wasn't exactly a great success.
No.
No, us case. It was incredibly poorly.
Did not work. We need to be prepared to have something that works this time.
But. But given the speed at which this is happening and this is. I'm not so much talking about JP Morgan. I'm talking in public policy terms. Given the speed at which this technology is coming, what do governments what does the US government, what do other governments need to be doing right now to prepare societies for that?
Have a plan to retrain people, relocate people, income assist people. I'll give you a thought. Exercise, okay. 2 million commercial trucks in the United States. You know, it may get to the point where you can push a button. You're going to save lives. It's going to be faster. You're going to save CO2. It's obviously makes sense. And should you do it all at once? If 2 million people go from driving a truck, making 200, $150,000 a year, you know, to a next job might be 25,000. No, you have civil unrest, you know, so therefore phase it in retrain a.
Phase in AI.
Just just tell them you can't lay off 2 million truckers tomorrow. You can phase it in over.
You want the government to tell you you can't lay off a whole bunch of people at JP Morgan.
And we would agree, you know, if, if, if we have to do that to save society, remember, it'll be more productive society. So society will have more production. We're going to we're going to cure a lot of cancers. You're not going to slow it down. How do you have plans in place to make it work better if in fact it does something terrible and that's that's the only way to do it.
And that should be done at the level of the government telling companies they cannot lay off.
No, I think it should be done at a more of a local level where someone says to a JP Morgan, can you put give you incentives to put in place to retrain these people? Can you slow this down and give people income assistance? Give them. Yeah, we could do stuff like that. We're not going to kill all of our employees tomorrow because of AI. We're just not like that.
Absent that will in five years time, will JP Morgan have fewer employees than it has now?
Well, if we're good, we'll have, you know, we're growing still around the world, but my guess is it'll be fewer employees. Yeah.
In five years. Yeah. So AI the technological revolution is one of the huge changes we're living through. We're also living through a very dramatic geopolitical shift. The word Greenland keeps coming up here. Before we get to Greenland itself, more broadly, you've written in, in shareholder letters over the years about the importance of geopolitics. You've worried about geopolitics in previous years. How dangerous is this particular geopolitical moment? Is it the most dangerous you've seen?
Well, look, I think it's cumulative. I mean, I think the world after the invasion of Ukraine by 300,000 Russian troops, we eyes wake up, you know, we thought the world was safe. It's simply not safe. And so, you know, my my view is what I want. And I think you should always talk about what is you actually want. You know, you're king for a queen for a day. I want a stronger year. I think we need a stronger NATO. I think it's right for us to complain that NATO didn't do enough. Fine. Got it. Crying over spilled milk. How do you make it stronger? And, And I think we need a stronger. We need a stronger Europe. I think that's good for America. It's good for Europe. They know what they need to do. You know, the Draghi report and all these common markets and savings and investment policies and and they don't have that common market yet. They have too much bureaucracy. They have too much things that get in the way. But that that would be good for Europe and very good for America. And you know, trade and tariffs are part of that, but not the only part of that. So I still think that's the best thing to keep the Western world together. That would be my goal. Keep the make the world safer and stronger for democracy so that we don't read that book 40 years from now. How the West lost.
Do you think the Trump administration is making the world safer and stronger and making NATO stronger?
Yeah, I don't think it's a binary thing. I think that they I think, you know, to isolate what NATO weaknesses are. I think that's fine. You know, they do it in their own way. You know, I wouldn't say things like that on TV. I might say it publicly, privately. So I think that's all right. I think it's okay to point out I would be more polite about it, about the weaknesses of Europe, what they need to do. But if the goal is to make them stronger as opposed to fragment Europe, then I think that's okay.
But do you think that is the goal?
I don't know, I don't I have not heard them say what they want the ultimate goal to be. But but.
You're not the only one.
Remember, we did not leave NATO, you know, and and so, you know, to me, it's important to understand that originally during Trump won, people say, oh, we're going to leave. No we didn't you know, he's he's and he's out there and in the world. And you may not agree with it all, but it's not a retreat in America of some sort. And so, and the economic I think the economic, economic side is more complicated because it entails really detailed policy that needs to get done. And I would kind of if I was there, I would kind of be using our moral persuasion or economic persuasion or intelligence and military to kind of push Europe to do the things that's right for Europe, and the leadership of Europe has to do it. It really can't be done by America, but we can be a partner, maybe furthering that.
We'll come to the economics in a second. But just one more on the geopolitics, because you're right that it's it's hard to characterize what the Trump doctrine is, if you will. It's not America first. It's not America alone. It might be America unconstrained, but it has elements that we can now tell. It is a transactional foreign policy. It is a foreign policy that places much less weight, actually, on alliances. It's a bullying foreign policy overall. Is that a foreign policy that is good for America?
Yeah. I'm not going to comment on all that because when you deal with the press they want, you guys always want binary answers to everything.
I honestly think that's a reasonable question. Is it a good thing for America to have this kind of policy?
Let me correct you a little bit, okay? When I talk to the press, you know, they never asked me to comment on everything that Biden did. And I think he did some terrible things both domestically and in foreign policy. Do I agree with everything? The Trump administration? Of course not.
No, but in aggregate, in aggregate. Is this a good foreign policy?
I don't know yet. You know, if they were here, if I was talking to the president, I'd be saying exactly what I'm saying. This should be the goal. Here are the ways to get it. These things may be counter to that.
So there's an argument that China is actually the big winner from this approach, because China has stood up to the United States on tariffs and face down the United States. China is now projecting itself as a as a stable supporter of multilateralism. Do you think China is the winner from this?
I think that's a real stretch. You know, China has a $15,000 per person GDP. Ours is 85. We have the most dynamic economy and prosperous the world has ever seen. We have 40 military allies, 140 economic alliances. They have one, they've done a great job in so many things, but they still import 10 million of barrel oil a day. Yeah, this has created some openings for them, you know, are they going to be the best economic or military alliance for a lot of the people out there who are mad at America, probably not. So, you know, so I take a deep breath on that one. And it's easy to say, I think they've done things right. They have serious problems, you know, in their economy. They've got, you know, kind of two economies, the the consumer real estate, misallocation of capital, huge investment in technology. I applaud them, let them, you know, cars and batteries and stuff like that. But whether that works over a long period of time, I do not know they on their own without us. Okay. And you guys always forget to mention this. Korea, North Japan, Australia, Philippines, they're all rearming on their own. That's China's actions caused that, not America's actions. We we we're part of that. You know, I remember speaking to Rahm Emanuel, who was ambassador, how they're working with, they've got Korea and Japan working together. They're going to rearm, which I think they have to at this point. And so, yeah, this is a lot of things taking place here, not just one. And so I try to keep open minded about all those things and then give as best advice as I can to my country or other people and asked.
There are a lot of things happening at the same time. But I'm just trying to get a sense from you about the scale of the moment. Do you think this is Prime Minister Carney has called it a rupture? Do you think this is a we are shifting is this post-war order that we all talked about, including you, I think, in in previous shareholder letters. Is that over? Are we in a new world now?
Again, you're making it binary I don't know, I saw part of Carney's Beach. I have a lot of respect for Carney. He did. You know, we're causing some things which may not be good in the long run for America. Like, Carney was just in China, and now he's going to go to India and all these things like that. It's not a rupture. If you said to me, America become unreliable. No, it's just it's just you had total reliance and now it's less reliable. You know, it's probably more that which is now.
Now we're talking semantics. This is my profession, not yours. I mean, less reliable. At some point, you become unreliable.
Well, we're still we're still a military ally to all 40 countries. When I talk to our military, they're geared up to defend their allies around the world. You know, Trump hasn't stopped all that. So I just, you know, I think it's time for people to take a little bit of a deep breath. That does not mean I like it all, you know. And, you know, of course, all my Democratic friends send me notes. You got to say this. You got to say that you got to say this. And my point is, well, no, they never go through any detail whatsoever. They just huff and puff and get angry, and that doesn't work. So, you know, I know what I believe in. I'm going to write some more about it. My chairman's letter about policy. I think the worker don't work, and that's what I'm going to do.
So let's talk about economic policy, where there's also been a pretty big change. And, you know, two big areas. We've gone from a US that underwrote multilateral trade rules to a US that believes in tariffs. Now the tariffs that have ended up being imposed are 10% probably on average, not not quite as high as we feared on Liberation Day. Is that a good idea?
Again, it's not binary. There are three. No but no, but you guys, you know, you got to get your heads out of like your own echo chamber. There are three parts to trade, okay. And some require tariffs okay. One part is national security. We should do what we have to do to create national security around rare earths. You know, around, advanced active pharmaceutical ingredients and some that may require policy that is not typical, like tariffs or pay, you know, long term data contracts. So you can build the stuff here you need and some advanced manufacturing the same category. These companies cannot succeed if there aren't barriers, quotas, tariffs or pay for play. Absolutely. Synequanon I would do what I had to do to protect American national security. The second one is unfair trade and I say unfair important trade. I just don't think furniture or t shirts are important trade. But you know, there is unfair trade. It's not. It's in some places blown out of proportion. But if you are subsidizing China in this case, or anyone subsidizing their cars, their batteries or this or that, so anyone who tries to compete is going to get sunk because of subsidies, you know, and the subsidies can come in various forms, then you should counter that. You can counter that with quotas. A lot of countries have quotas. You encounter that with tariffs perfectly fine as long as there's there's a reason for it. But I'm not a tariff guy in general. I don't think in general it's a great idea. But you know, it is what it is. And so.
But the president is a tariff guy in general. Yes. He loves tariffs. He is. So this is an area where you would disagree.
I would.
Okay. Good. Finally immigration another big change in immigration policy. We've essentially gone from a huge amount of unconstrained immigration, which clearly the president ran on countering and has done. But to a United States that is, you know, much, much more skeptical of immigration, both legal and illegal. Is that good?
So I, I'm still angry at the Biden administration for what they allowed to happen. Okay. And I think it's severely damaged our country. And then they said, oh, there's nothing you can do about it. And Trump comes in, boom, it's closed. God bless him. You know, countries have to control their borders or they will cause you problems. And you have that all over Europe. And it's even worse there because in America, most people coming to America want to be American. They come to work. They can't wait to become a citizen of the United States of America. That's not true. For most of the European immigration. I was with President Trump when Trump won. Oh, and I said to him, when you get the borders controlled, fix the rest of it. DACA stay. He said, yeah, more merit based. He said absolutely a path to citizenship for hardworking people. Absolutely. You know and proper asylum. I, I would urge him to do that. I think he can because he controlled the borders and stuff like that. So yeah, I so.
Much evidence of that.
Not yet a little bit in the merit side, you see them talking about the merit side, and places and of course, I don't like what I'm seeing, you know, with, you know, five grown men beating up little women. Okay. So, so I think we should calm down a little bit on the internal anger about immigration. And, you know, for those people I've heard Trump say even this term, hey, we need these people. They work in our hospitals and our hotels and restaurants and agriculture, and they're they're good people because we all know them. They are good people. They should be treated that way.
And that's not what you're seeing on the streets of.
You know what? When I, I don't yes, it's not always what you see. And I think rounding up criminals is one thing. I don't have a chart that shows and I'm a fanatic about detail. Show me who's been rounded up. Are they here legally? Are they criminals? Did they do some law? Did they break American law? And. But I don't like what I'm seeing. But it's hard for me to tell whether that's just, you know, with the liberal press plays or whether there's more truth to that.
You're beginning to sound quite Trumpy in this.
The liberal.
I'm not.
I'm not Trumpy. I just I'm a realist, and I like facts and detail and not binary that goes on all the time with, I.
We can agree. We can agree.
I love I think The Economist is the absolute best, most analytical thing in the world. And you should continue that. So.
Absolutely. Well, if we do, we are and we do. Let's talk about one other area institutions, attacks on institutions and undermining of independent institutions, the fed being the obvious one. There has been and I don't think I'm, you know, being, as you would say, too binary on this. They have very clearly been pressure on the fed, notably ten days ago, the the announcement by Chair Powell that he had been received a subpoena for a criminal investigation. Is that a good idea?
Everyone I know, including President Trump, says we should have an independent fed is critical. I've never seen anyone. Actually, that's not completely independent. Just so you know, there's two parts to the fed. One is monetary that needs to be independent. The other is regulatory. Huge overreach. That's not independent. That's law. And let me finish. I don't like I think the things that undercut independence are not good. So I think some of those words I don't like lawfare. I've had to deal with lawfare my whole life. I mean, going way back, you know, constantly being, you know, unfairly, sometimes fairly sometimes, but blown out of proportion. I think that undercuts it. So I think Powell will be gone in five months. I think constant statements is a mistake. And just so you know, the fed doesn't really set interest rates. Okay. Just listen closely to me. What happens if inflation goes up. They raise interest rates. What happens if inflation goes down. They reduce interest rates. They are a fast follower. And if you look at all fed history it isn't like they're completely independent. And the last time and by every American president wants lower rates. But the last time a president jawbone lower rates was Arthur Burns. You know, President Nixon, who had a 60% approval rating when he got elected. You know, inflation was only 3.5%. It kept on going up. Of course, there was Watergate and the oil crisis. But, you know, markets were down 40%. He resigned in disgrace. Inflation and with deficits half and deficits are inflationary with deficits half what they are today. It went from 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%. And you can come up with all the reasons stronger unions, the oil issues and all that. But but inflation is is a bugaboo and the fed has to deal with inflation. And that's a judgment of a lot of people what that means. So,
But just to be very clear, what we're seeing now is lawfare and you're against it.
I don't like the courts doing stuff like that. I think they should be very thoughtful about when they pick something up like that.
One of the other policies that the president announced recently.
By this, this this has been going on my whole life, too. So this isn't just President Trump. I get that. Okay. So let's be clear about DOJ overreach. It's been consistent now for 20 years. And and you know, in the old days, the DOJ would step into something when it was referred to them by, you know, either civil or criminal. Now they just read the paper and step in. And that's a mistake because, you know, to the to them, they're a hammer. To them everything's a nail.
And one of President Trump's recent proposals that would directly affect you, he's doing it to improve affordability, is to impose a 10% cap on credit card rates. Is that a bad idea?
It would be an economic disaster. And I'm not making it up because our business, you know, we would survive it. By the way, you would if you in the worst case, you'd have to have a drastic reduction of the credit card business. I mean, drastic, I mean, like 10%. I mean, like 80%. It would remove credit from 80% of Americans and that is their backup credit. And but I have a great idea, since there's a huge disagreement on this one, you know, between Republicans and Democrats, I think we should test it. And in my view, and I can't do this, you know, because it would be antitrust, but the government can do it. They should force all the banks to do it in two states, Vermont and Massachusetts, and see what happens. And then I think I think the left will learn a everyone who thinks manipulating prices will learn a real lesson, and the people crying the most won't be the credit card companies. It'll be the restaurants, the retailers, the travel companies, the schools, the municipalities. Because people will miss their water payments, their this payment and that payment. It would be it would be something else to watch. I think they should test it.
Well, president may be determined to test it more broadly.
Well then okay, whatever it is we'll deal with, I think it's wrong for the government to get involved extensively in pricing of stuff. But, you know, I got to deal with the world. I got.
It's kind of interesting.
They're going to we're going to give them at one point real analysis on the effects of this. We've given some but not a lot.
It's kind of interesting when I asked you something that directly, by the way, you say it will be a complete economic disaster. When I speak more broadly about geopolitics, you're very reluctant to criticize.
First of all, one, I know exactly. The other one is, is is more qualitative how it's going to work, what are the pieces, what's their intent? How are people going to respond? They're not the same thing. But but but the economic when you believe somebody true you should say that. And so the economic of the car thing. We'll see.
Do you think.
The other thing I've not seen anyone really Republicans, senators, businesses, banks, credit unions, community banks, anyone think it's a good idea?
Do you think it is?
It goes back to this thing about, you know, this word affordable. Of course we want affordability. You know, the Democrats don't own affordability. We what we've screwed up as a nation is bad policy around housing, mortgages, affordability, health. You know, immigration. You know, we've we've messed up so many policies which I write about. It's time to fix them. And I think the economists can help do that because you guys have really smart people. And so and we constantly have this economic policy that we don't think it through. We've driven half the companies out of the public markets. What are we doing? Why did that happen? You know, and then we just can't deal with reality anymore as a, as a people because we, you know, we want a simple answer to everything. And so.
When you tot up all the things that we've been talking about, the president's policies both politically and economically and the tech change that we're living through, do you think the US economy is on balance, in better shape or worse shape?
You know, it's been hugely resilient. It's in pretty good shape. You're going to have a lot of stimulus earlier this year. So you're going to and multiple forms of it from the one big beautiful bill to what they do with student lending to, you know, some of the mortgage purchasing. They're doing deregulation of banks, which is real deregulation which feeds animal spirits. It's our economy is so large and so integrated and so complex, and it's hard to always tell. But the innovation is unbelievable. You take a trip to Silicon Valley and look at these companies, you know, it blows you away. The, you know, the brainpower going to fixing things and curing cancer and fixing machines. And so I think it's great. So you talk about economic policy. You know, I think what government should be focused more on policy conducive to growth. And then of course, you have policies that help the, you know, the old, the sick, the aged, etc. and we don't even do good on that in a lot of cases. So I think we could do a better job making the economy work for everybody. And it is a little bit of this k economy. Now, you know, we do see that where, you know, the upper income are doing far better. They got houses and stock stocks and the lower side they're back to normal which they don't have enough of a rainy day fund. You know jobs are getting a little harder to get. Incomes have stopped growing a little bit and we're quite conscious of that. And I think there are things we can do. Like for example, I and we've done it now. I would double the earned income tax credit. I would give people working more money as a negative tax. So you're making $14,000. You get a check from the government at 12,000. I get rid of the the child requirement. Then you give it to the people who actually use it to further their lives, spend in their communities, take care of their kids, as opposed to government dictating how you spend money on every little thing you do. And so I think there are real fixes that make society work better for everybody.
And would you raise taxes to pay for that?
I don't think you have to. I think it would drive a lot of growth. I think I did the numbers at one point would be $60 billion of spending. I think it would probably create more than that of growth and taxes, you know, and if you have to raise taxes a little bit, that's fine. But again, I don't want to buy any argument. I don't I don't know anyone. Okay. And you guys in the room, you might be Democrats or Republicans who thinks the spending that that spending another trillion dollars to Washington, D.C. will actually improve anything. So when you say raise taxes, if you said raise taxes and directly give it to the people who need it, do it.
No.
So now.
What happens?
We are running.
Out of time.
With all these interest groups, you know, and they give it to their friends and all that. And which is why which is why the people consider it a swamp. It's kind of a swamp. You know, the 17,000 lobbying groups, bank companies are guilty, too. They're just fighting for their own self-interest as opposed to what's good for my country. But, you know, that's what happens in Congress. You know, and you see these how these bills get spent, like the Chips act was a good idea until, you know, it was it was had to be a union base, child care, diapers, you know, what the hell are we doing? And we do it over and over, and then we. And then it fails. And then we spend more money. Because the problem is we didn't spend enough money.
Like.
So you're a man with with many strong opinions. We've heard that in the last few minutes, man. Not afraid to tell us about those opinions. But I was struck when we were when we were talking about President Trump. You were very, very careful. And you are one of the more outspoken. Let me finish. Just let me finish what you were one of the more outspoken business leaders. I am struck I'm genuinely struck by the unwillingness of CEOs in America to say anything critical. There is a climate of fear in your country. Would you agree with that? And what should be done about it?
Well, this is.
The Davos Davos intellectual elite. You know I've been coming to Davos all these years and listening to chatter and stuff like that. And he didn't do a particularly good job of making the world a better place. I think it's great we get together and talk and. but but the you want me to do this.
Is I want you to answer my question.
Not hard line that gets.
No, Jamie, that's not true.
I'm genuinely. I've asked you this question.
Off camera.
Clear. I want a stronger NATO, a stronger Europe. Some of the things Trump has done are causing that. Some are not. I'm not a tariff guy, though. I'd use it in the cases I had. I think they should change their post. Immigration. I've said it. What the hell else do you want me to say?
Is there a. climate of fear.
That I think that is completely clear, you know. Hey, ready? You can. Here's your headline. I'm a globalist.
I'm not looking for a headline. I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm not looking for a headline. But I enjoyed that. We're running out of time. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.