Good Data Here | The 2025 Trust Barometer

One of my favorite documents for understanding the state of the world and its future is the Edelman Trust Barometer, now in its 25th edition. The survey aims to understand why people hold the views they do and how personal attitudes interact to shape broader societal forces affecting commerce and culture.

Edelman reports: "The 2025 Trust Barometer has revealed a profound shift to acceptance of aggressive action, with political polarization and deepening fears giving rise to a widespread sense of grievance."

Here are the seven most significant insights from the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer report:

Trust crisis with governments + electoral impact: Government trust levels remained largely stagnant globally, with only two countries showing significant trust improvements—Argentina and South Africa. Only five countries scored in the 70s—China, Indonesia, India, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia—with the United States and the United Kingdom mired in the 40s at 47 and 43 percent, respectively. Globally, the trust index remains at 56%—the same as in 2024—indicating elections are failing to restore institutional confidence.

Economic insecurity: Job security fears have intensified globally, with significant increases in concerns about globalization (+5-6%), financial pressures (+3%), and technology disruption (+2-5%). Over 60% of employees worry about international trade conflicts and recession impacts. Survey respondents indicated they are also more suspicious of the rise and use of artificial intelligence (AI). This calls for more action from businesses, such as implementing workforce reskilling and retraining necessary to keep people employable whose jobs are being eliminated or significantly altered by automation and AI.

Leadership credibility collapse: Trust in leaders has hit historic lows. 69% believe government leaders purposely mislead people (up 11 percentage points since 2021), alongside similar distrust of business leaders (68%) and journalists (70%). This represents an all-time high in leadership skepticism. Bottom line: If you're a leader, you ain't trusted.

Wealth + Trust inequality: A 13-point trust gap exists between the high-income (61%) and low-income (48%) populations. 67% believe wealthy individuals don't pay fair taxes, while 65% view wealthy people's selfishness as a source of societal problems. Bottom line: If you're wealthy, you ain't trusted.

Rising social volatility: Forty percent of survey respondents now view hostile activism as legitimate for driving change, and this sentiment reaches 53% among young adults (18-34). This indicates a growing willingness to embrace confrontational approaches to achieving social change. See the "Just Stop Oil" protestors.

Business leadership opportunity: The good news is that those reading this memo can make a difference. Businesses remain the most trusted institution (62%) and are uniquely positioned as competent and ethical. However, this trust advantage comes with expectations—majorities expect businesses to address affordability, climate change, and workforce training.

Grievance crisis: 61% of people globally hold moderate to high grievances against institutions and elites. This mindset correlates strongly with decreased trust in all institutions and increased zero-sum thinking about social progress. This high level of grievance represents a fundamental challenge to social cohesion.

These findings suggest a volatile social environment where traditional institutions struggle to maintain legitimacy and face increased demands for tangible economic security and social equity progress.

As I have said for years, business leaders have a unique opportunity and obligation to help address these challenges, given their relatively stronger trust position.

Business leaders are uniquely qualified to address the challenges facing us. With the wherewithal, access to funds, and global reach, they should embrace 2025 as the year to make a difference—be a force for good.

How CEOs navigate the waters of globalization and geopolitics will shape commerce and culture for the foreseeable future.

Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.

-Marc

Marc A. Ross | Chief Communications Strategist @ Caracal

Trump 2.0 and AI | ‘Just Build’

The global artificial intelligence landscape is experiencing a seismic shift as the United States, led by President Trump's actions just days into his second term in the White House, dramatically revamps its approach to AI development and regulation. This transformation presents unprecedented opportunities and strategic challenges for business leaders navigating the competitive landscape.

The most significant change comes from the immediate dismantling of previous regulatory frameworks shaped by the Joe Biden administration. This creates a markedly different operating environment for AI companies and enterprises investing in AI capabilities. Trump's deregulation prioritizes a "just build" ethos over the careful balance of innovation and safety protocols that characterized previous US federal policies.

The massive joint venture between SoftBank, OpenAI, and Oracle, Stargate, was announced on January 21. It exemplifies the scale of opportunity in this new AI landscape. With an initial investment of $100 billion and plans to scale to $500 billion, this partnership is already breaking ground on new data centers, including strategic locations like Abilene, Texas. For CEOs, this represents not just a benchmark for the scale of potential investment but also a signal of the infrastructure requirements needed to compete in the next phase of AI development.

Many in Washington, DC, see the competitive dynamics with China as the crucial factor driving this "just build" policy shift. Industry leaders from Alphabet and OpenAI have highlighted the intensifying global race for AI supremacy, with China making substantial investments in AI technology. Trump 2.0's new regulatory approach encourages US companies to accelerate their AI development, though questions remain about long-term risk management and market stability.

Perhaps most notably, we're seeing the emergence of three distinct regulatory approaches globally. While the US moves toward rapid deregulation and a market-driven approach, the European Union maintains a precautionary stance with stringent oversight on privacy and safety. At the same time, China is taking a state-directed approach to AI regulation, balancing technological advancement with national security and social stability in the Middle Kingdom.

The Trump administration has assembled an influential advisory group, including prominent tech figures like Elon Musk and David Sacks, which indicates a strong alignment between government policy and private sector interests. However, this presents interesting tensions, particularly given Musk's documented concerns about AI safety alongside his investments in the sector through xAI. Already Musk, an OpenAI competitor and senior Trump advisor, tweeted that Stargate joint venture participants "don't actually have the money," suggesting that the project is all hat and no cattle.

For CEOs, the reduced regulatory friction in the United States creates opportunities for accelerated AI deployment and development. Still, leaders must balance speed-to-market against potential future regulatory backlash, mainly if operating in the European Union or China. Multinational companies should evaluate their AI development roadmaps, assess infrastructure investment opportunities, and maintain flexible compliance frameworks that can adapt to different regional requirements.

The success of a company's AI strategy will likely depend on its ability to self-regulate effectively while pursuing aggressive growth.

Frank Pasquale, a law professor at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School, noted that while this new Trump 2.0 approach to AI may yield short-term gains, the absence of guardrails could present long-term challenges. The key for business leaders will be finding the right balance between capitalizing on immediate opportunities while building sustainable, responsible AI practices that weather potential future regulatory changes.

Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.

-Marc

Marc A. Ross | Chief Communications Strategist @ Caracal

Sneaker colors

"Between 70 percent to 90 percent of subconscious judgment on a product is made in a few seconds on color alone. It can excite or calm us; it can raise our blood pressure. It's really powerful." -- Jenny Ross, the head of concept design and strategy for lifestyle footwear at New Balance

Mark C. O'Flaherty, in a New York Times article entitled "The Secret Psychology of Sneaker Colors," explains how Nike, Adidas, and New Balance are not randomly choosing glaring shades for thier sneakers.

'Aqua blue, acid lime, and grape purple. Electric orange interspersed with neon pink. Gray suede and cheetah print mixed with white and gold. These are not descriptions of a minimalist's worst nightmare, but rather new color combinations… are jarring by design.

"In the age of the infinite scroll and the era of sneaker culture, where the competition to make the hottest, rarest, most wanted kick is more intense than ever, the shoe that clashes shades with the most force stops traffic — at least of the online kind. As a result, athletic shoe companies are increasingly becoming fluent aficionados of that old art: color theory."

A favorite color of one of my girlfriends from back in the day was cobalt blue. Not blue, but cobalt blue.

My favorite NFL team, the Detroit Lions, wears "Honolulu blue" jerseys, and my grad business school, the University of North Carolina, wears "Carolina blue."

A simple blue does not work.