Why did the 21st century start on 20 January 2025?

History doesn’t follow a calendar but defining ideas. The “long 19th century” began with the French Revolution (1789) and ended with World War I (1914). Similarly, the “long 20th century” began in 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I and emerged as a global power.

What is the concept of a ‘long century’?

It is historiographical approach to look into causes of historical developments beyond specific events. French historian Fernand Braudel made a major methodological contribution by introducing historical analysis around three types of ‘time’:

Longue durée: Slow-moving forces like geography, climate, and social systems that shape history over milenias and centuries.
Conjonctures: Medium-term cycles, such as economic trends or demographic shifts, unfolding over decades.
Événements: Short-term events like wars or revolutions are often surface-level and attract a lot of attention while, often, missing deeper structural context.

Braudel argued that true historical insight comes from focusing on the longue durée and conjonctures—the enduring forces that define societal developments.

‘Long centuries’ place current developments such as Trump inauguration and DeepSeek release into wider time context of Braudel’s methodology.

Symbolically, the 21st century started on 20 January 2025 with two defining events—Donald Trump’s divisive return to power and the seismic release of DeepSeek, a Chinese open-source AI. Here’s why.

1. Trump Moment: The end of the Pax Americana and the Enlightenment era?

Trump’s return to power represented not merely a political recalibration but the conclusion of an era anchored in American global leadership. Since 1917, the United States has served as the principal architect of international institutions, alliances, and the advancement of democratic ideals. The “America First” agenda—prioritizing national sovereignty over global entanglements and domestic economic interests over multilateral frameworks—signalled a deliberate retreat from the traditional US diplomatic approach highlighted by State Secretary Marco Rubio:

So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power.  That was not – that was an anomaly.  It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.

What is America’s ‘long century’?

America’s ‘long century’ origins can be traced back to 16 January 1917. That day, The New York Times published the Zimmermann Telegram, a secret message from Berlin to Mexico City proposing an alliance: if Mexico joined Germany in World War I, it would be rewarded by getting California and other territories of the south-western U.S.

The British intelligence operation that exposed the telegram sparked public outrage, pushing Congress to end the isolation policy and declare war on Germany. The U.S. embraced a global mission from that moment, shaping international institutions, alliances, and liberal ideals for over a century.

Trump’s presidency marked the end of this era. While the U.S. will remain active globally, it is no longer its priority. The new administration shifted focus to a national agenda, economic protectionism, and scepticism toward global institutions.

Trump ‘walked the talk’ by withdrawing during the first week of his administration from the Parice climate change agreement and the World Health Organisation.

Crisis of Enlightenment

Yet Trump’s shift transcended politics. It revealed a growing scepticism toward a defining assumption of modernity: that societies function within a universally shared framework of rational thought, a concept forged during the ‘long 20th century’. This period saw sustained efforts to impose scientific rigour—rooted in observation, experimentation, and predictability—in understanding human conditions and our society. Politics, the realm of arts, intuition, and statecraft, was recast as “political science,” while social dynamics started being treated as phenomena reducible to formulaic analysis.

Resistance to this ‘scientification’ of society, however, predated Trump. Postmodern scholars warned against conflating human behaviour with laboratory experiments. Over time, scepticism spread beyond academia. Public trust in scientific consensus—once viewed as an objective foundation of society—eroded, exacerbated by social media’s amplification of competing narratives and partisan media’s weaponisation of discourse. This erosion of shared truths has precipitated an epistemic crisis, challenging the Enlightenment’s core proposition: that reason alone can order society.

As we enter this nascent era, the imperative is to give rationality a new purpose. The Enlightenment project can endure only by revitalizing critical thinking and tempering empirical rigour by acknowledging human complexity—cultural heritage, communal bonds, and societal complexities.

The path forward should avoid risks of reactionary tribalism and technocratic overreach. Instead, it demands a renewed modernity: one that harmonizes reason with humility, recognizing that enduring institutions must account for both human imperfection and the irreducible diversity of society.

This article is part of our ongoing series on the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s leadership.
To see more articles on this subject, visit our Trump Moment blog collection page.

2. DeepSeek Moment: The rise of the cognitive economy

On Trump’s inauguration day, DeepSeek launched a groundbreaking open-source AI model, challenging Big Tech’s dominance by offering free access to its code—unlike proprietary systems from OpenAI and Anthropic.

DeepSeek’s moment transcends a mere tech breakthrough, heralding the dawn of a ‘new century’:

First, it marks a shift from industrial capitalism-driven mainly by money and machines- to a cognitive economy- fueled by knowledge and creativity.

Second, wealth and economic power will diminish as determinants of success. DeepSeek developed its model with 20 times less investment than tech giants, attracting top talent by prioritising, among other motivations, the centrality of open-source collaboration.

Third, once tech imitators, Chinese companies and labs now lead a new competition: not for control of data and technology, but for defining how innovation unfolds in the AI era.

Don’t miss the DeepSeek Moment.
Stay updated on the latest developments and in-depth analysis of DeepSeek’s transformative impact on AI, security, geopolitics, and more.

The new century starts

As the ‘long 20th century’ collapsed under its own flaws—globalization’s inequities, institutional decay, and the weaponisation of facts and truth, we enter in highly uncertain era of volatility and possibility for reinvention. Three main questions will resonate in the coming years:


Tech at Trump’s inauguration: Visible presence, loud absence

Tech at Trump’s inauguration: Visible presence, loud absence

The imagery was striking: at Donald Trump’s inauguration for his second term, four tech magnates—Elon Musk (X/Tesla), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Jeff Bezos (Amazon)—stood prominently behind the new president, symbolising a deliberate alignment between the Trump administration and Silicon Valley’s power brokers. Yet the carefully choreographed event raised as many questions as it answered. Who was missing, what policies were prioritised, and what do these choices signal about the trajectory of American tech power under Trump 2.0?

Monitor 2025 AI and digital: Check out my Tech predictions for Trump’s presidency and real-time forecast monitoring via my 10 AI Forecasts for 2025.

Stage choreography for tech power

The image shows a photograph of Mark Zuckerberg, MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and Elon Musk at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump in 2025.
Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words and trillions of dollars

Musk and Zuckerberg’s inclusion was to be expected. Musk has heavily supported Trump’s campaign and led Silicon Valley’s Republican pivot. Zuckerberg immediately switched sides with Meta’s new content policy. Google’s Sundar Pichai, however, was a surprise attendee, given the company’s open Democratic Party leaning and sharp criticism by Trump in the past. Pichai’s presence raises the possibility of hidden concessions, potentially due to regulatory or antitrust pressures.

But the omissions were telling as well. Nvidia and Microsoft—two giants central to the AI hardware and software revolution—were notably absent. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, whose chips power the AI race, has been a global ambassador for ‘ethical AI’, while Microsoft’s Satya Nadella has championed partnerships with OpenAI under strict safety guardrails. Their absence hints at Trump’s White House sidelining the critics of its deregulatory tech vision.

AI policy: Dismantling the ‘long-termist’ agenda

The most consequential move came swiftly: Trump repealed Executive Order 14110, the Biden-era mandate prioritising ‘safe, secure, and trustworthy’ AI development. That framework emphasised preemptive risk assessments, cybersecurity standards, and protections against algorithmic bias. Its revocation signals a pivot from precaution to acceleration—a win for Silicon Valley’s ‘move fast and break things’ ethos but a potential trouble for accountable AI developments.

Trump’s team has framed this as innovation’s liberation from ‘bureaucratic overreach’, but critics warn it abandons safeguards against long-term and immediate risks in labour, education, and media. The absence of Microsoft and Nvidia, key players in responsible AI coalitions, underscores this ideological rift. 

Digital taxation: A retreat from global rules

The termination of OECD negotiations on digital taxation—a Biden initiative to harmonise corporate tax rules for tech multinationals—aligns with Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine. By scrapping the talks, the USA aims to shield Silicon Valley from European-style levies. While this delights shareholders, it risks retaliatory tariffs and deepens global inequities in taxing the digital economy. Digital taxes will become one of the main fractures in the global digital landscape.

Crypto’s curious omission: A pause or signal?

Surprisingly, no executive order addressed cryptocurrencies, despite Trump’s recent pro-Bitcoin overtures and meme-coin endorsements. This silence leaves the industry in limbo. Some speculate the administration is crafting a separate, industry-friendly bill with the US Congress, while others see it as a tactical delay to avoid alienating anti-crypto factions in the GOP. Either way, the lack of action contrasts sharply with Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, leaving crypto enthusiasts and sceptics waiting for the next steps. 

The bigger picture: A tech cold war mentality

The inaugural theatrics and policy rollbacks reveal a coherent strategy:

The repeal of disinformation policies—a nod to Musk and Zuckerberg—further empowers platforms to dismantle content moderation, framing it as a victory for free speech.

However, the absence of Microsoft, Nvidia, and others signals a fragmented industry. Companies that have invested in global cooperation, AI ethics, or climate-focused tech may be disadvantaged. The risk is a two-tiered tech ecosystem: one faction racing toward unchecked innovation under Trump’s banner and another navigating reputational and regulatory blowback abroad.

In this new era, Silicon Valley’s influence is undeniable—but so are the fractures. The question is whether this marriage of convenience will fuel American tech dominance or accelerate its unravelling.

This article is part of our ongoing series on the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s leadership.
To see more articles on this subject, visit our Trump Moment blog collection page.

Trump and tech: More of the same, but with a twist

Trump and tech: More of the same, but with a twist

As President Trump prepares to take office on Sunday, January20 , the tech world is bracing for impact. The United States, as the birthplace of the internet, AI, and many of the world’s leading tech companies, plays an outsized role in shaping the global digital landscape. Yet, despite the anticipation of sweeping changes, Trump’s presidency is likely to reflect more continuity than disruption in tech policy. This prediction is rooted in both historical continuity and practical realities.

Historical continuity: A private sector-driven legacy

The United States has long championed a private sector-led approach to technological innovation, a tradition that dates back to the 19th century when, at the ITU St. Petersburg conference in 1875, the USA opposed a provision on the government’s control of content carried by telegraph companies. 

Over the past century and a half, this core policy has remained remarkably consistent, with the ‘Titanic moment’ as the main exception when the USA pushed for adopting the strict international radio regulations in force today. These regulations responded to public outcry after the Titanic catastrophe, not marking the overall US approach to international tech governance.

Trump, a pro-business leader, is unlikely to break from this tradition. His administration will resist international regulatory efforts that could constrain US tech companies.

Practical realities: Why fix what isn’t broken?

The current international tech landscape largely benefits US interests. Silicon Valley’s growing influence on Trump further reinforces the likelihood that his administration will preserve the status quo. Why disrupt a system that has propelled American tech giants to global dominance?

However, maintaining this dominance won’t be without challenges. Other global actors, including partners such as the European Union, are increasingly asserting their interests in digital governance. These divergent priorities could create friction, especially around content regulation, taxation, and data sovereignty.

Content regulation: Challenges from abroad

One area where Trump’s presidency may bring notable shifts is content policy. The administration is expected to de-emphasise efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation, a stance influenced by Trump’s personal experiences with corporate content moderation. Elon Musk’s pushback against content restrictions at Twitter (nowadays X) was followed at the beginning of 2025 by Meta Platforms, host of Facebook and Instagram.

Two key questions will dominate the content policy debate:

What responsibility should tech platforms bear for the content they host?

The future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from liability for user-generated content, remains uncertain. While there is bipartisan support for reforming Section 230, no concrete changes have been made. Trump could seize this opportunity to hold companies accountable for harmful content, potentially reshaping the online information ecosystem.

How will the US navigate international tensions over content regulation?

The EU’s Digital Services Act and Australia’s law banning minors from accessing social media are examples of a growing global push for content regulation and stricter oversight of tech platforms. Trump’s content policy will collide with this trend and create new tech tensions with many countries, including US partners.

How will Trump deal with the future of TikTok?

After a strong push against TikTok during his first presidency, Trump has been sending mixed signals about the future of this video platform in the United States. The timing of the TikTok case is interesting as, according to US legislation, ByteDance should sell TikTok to US owners by 19 January, the day before Trump’s inauguration, or face being banned. Apart from this complexity, the ‘domestication’ of TikTok could set a precedent for similar actions against US companies operating in other jurisdictions and further complicating international tech relations.

AI: Aligning with global trends

Trump’s expected scrapping of Biden’s Executive Order on AI aligns with a broader shift from the ‘extinction risk’ narrative of 2023 towards a focus on more immediate AI risks and overall opportunities. This global AI shift can be seen in the forthcoming Paris AI summit programme, where issues of AI as commons and AI governance are more prominent than AI safety, which dominated the previous two summits in the UK and South Korea.

Trump’s executive order on AI, which can be expected on 20 January, will mirror one from 2019 aimed at solidifying the position of the US as the global AI leader through three priority areas: innovation (through research, infrastructure, and public-private partnerships), skilling (to prepare the workforce for an AI-driven economy), and global competitiveness (by promoting US AI exports and countering China’s influence).

Geostrategy and cybersecurity: A focus on China

‘Continuity’ can describe Trump’s cybersecurity policy, particularly in US-China relations. The Biden administration developed various export restriction policies during Trump’s first presidency. This geostrategic lens will also influence antitrust and competition policies as Trump seeks to ensure that American tech giants remain globally competitive.

Digital taxes: Unfinished business

The taxation of tech companies, a contentious issue during Trump’s first term, has not been resolved by Biden. The OECD failed to agree on a global framework for the taxation of tech companies. Many countries, including Germany, France, the UK, and Canada, that paused the introduction of the digital tax, will have to revisit this policy. This will inevitably lead to tension with Trump’s administration.

Cryptocurrencies: New dawn

The crypto industry, a significant donor to Trump’s campaign, is among the main winners of Trump’s election. On the news of Trump’s victory, bitcoin value surged 33%. Trump, who has also been named the first ‘crypto president,’ is expected to set a few critical regulations: the creation of a crypto stockpile as a strategic reserve, ensuring access of the crypto industry to banking services, and development of ‘crypto friendly’ policies by the newly established crypto council. The first test of how strong Trump’s ‘crypto’ shift will be is the number of executive orders dealing with cryptocurrencies that will be adopted on his first day in office on Sunday, 20 January.

Conclusion: Continuity with changes and challenges

While Trump’s presidency may bring some shifts in tech policy, particularly around content regulation and AI, the overarching theme will be continuity. The US will continue to prioritise private-sector innovation and resist international regulatory efforts. However, maintaining this approach will require navigating growing tensions with global partners and addressing complex domestic challenges. In the end, Trump’s tech presidency will be less about revolution and more about refining a system that has long served.

This article is part of our ongoing series on the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s leadership.
To see more articles on this subject, visit our Trump Moment blog collection page.

Why Trump’s appointment of Musk as an ‘efficiency tzar’ is about AI transformation?

President-elect Donald Trump has appointed Elon Musk as his ‘efficiency tzar’ with the stated goal of reducing federal administration. Many observers see this move as a personal vendetta against the so-called ‘deep state.’ However, focusing on Trump’s motivation for Musk’s appointment together with that of Vivek Ramaswamy as the advisor for government efficiency could lead to losing sight of the wider context of the profound AI transformation of administrations worldwide, from national governments to the UN.

The reality is that current bureaucratic machinery is largely anchored in outdated models—the Taylorian model of industrial production and the Weberian concept of bureaucracy. These frameworks, which emphasise rigid processes and control of information, are becoming anachronistic in the AI era.

The need for AI transformation

Namely, AI is and will increasingly automate text, which is a core tool of any bureaucracy since ancient civilisations. Many text-centred tasks within bureaucracies will disappear or undergo profound changes in the coming years. For instance, it is estimated that up to 50% of diplomatic tasks centred around text, such as diplomatic reporting, will be automated by AI. This major disruption in the operations of bureaucracies is not a prediction but a fast merging reality as organisations and governments start leveraging AI to streamline their operations and enhance effectiveness.

Thus, Musk’s task will be to codify this profound AI transformation of the modus operandi of the US government, which is likely to be mimicked by other governments and international organisations in the coming years.

Preparing for AI transformation

While following this major transition in the USA, here are a few steps that can be taken by governments and international organisations to prepare for AI transformation of public institutions.

First and foremost, society must start serious discussions about the changes on the horizon. Rather than getting bogged down in general discussions about AI ethics and, for example, long-term risks of AI, we need to have substantive conversations about how AI will specifically impact the work of governments and international organisations now and here.

Second, we should adopt a proactive mindset. Instead of waiting for influential figures such as Musk or big tech companies to lead the charge on AI integration, we must take the initiative in a bottom-up style by developing AI solutions at the level of government departments, communities, and other public and societal institutions. This ‘capillary’ AI would help us to preserve our knowledge and adjust AI to local specificities.

Third, we must identify public functions and tasks which cannot and/or should not be automated by AI, as efficiency should not be the only criterion for deciding about the use of AI. For example, the human element in diplomatic representation and negotiation is critical for ensuring core functions of diplomacy as a way of managing interactions between human groups, currently organised in national states. Thus, decisions to use AI in diplomacy should not be based solely on efficiency criteria.

Fourth, instead of squandering already tight public budgets on flashy AI projects and technology-driven solutions, we should invest in training staff and restructuring organisations to adapt to the changes that AI will bring. An experience from Diplo’s AI transformation shows that technology has less relevance in AI adoption than preparation of staff and changes in organisations that were centred at Diplo around nurturing ‘cognitive proximity’ among us, humans, and between us and machines.

Fifth, taking care of people should be critical. Instead of automatically replacing people with AI, serious efforts should be made to fit their unique talents and experience in the emerging ‘knowledge economy.’ There are many creative solutions that are sometimes overlooked in the simplified dichotomy of machines vs. humans. For example, communities of interpreters and translators should not fight lost battles against AI but focus on contributing to the development of AI models in different languages. Philosophers and linguists are in high demand as the focus shifts from technology, which is becoming a ‘commodity,’ to knowledge insights that can only be provided by humans.

Sixth, efficiency should not be the only criterion for AI transformation, as governments and public institutions have many other functions to control power, represent interests, and ensure societal stability.

Next Steps…

So far, there has mainly been knee-jerk media coverage of Musk’s appointment, shaped by overall tension between Trump and the US government machinery. Regardless of Trump’s motives for this move, the focus should be on much deeper changes which Musk, as ‘efficiency tzar’, will bring to the way our public institutions will function in the AI era. By engaging in meaningful discussions, taking proactive steps, and investing in building capacities, we can prepare public institutions, including diplomacies, for the AI transformation ahead of us. The time for action is now!

This article is part of our ongoing series on the far-reaching consequences of Trump’s leadership.
To see more articles on this subject, visit our Trump Moment blog collection page.