Fearing retaliation from Trump, Wall Street has fallen into a ‘spiral of silence’ and adopted a ‘cautious and prudent’ mode.

In the snow-covered valleys of Davos, executives from the world’s largest investment institutions gathered at an intimate breakfast meeting to exchange information before the arrival of US President Trump, but they were cautious in their wording.

This group of executives from Blackrock, TPG, and sovereign wealth giant Temasek discussed how rapidly changing US policies might impact global markets. At one point, an executive offered a pessimistic view on the tensions sparked by the US demand to acquire Greenland and its potential ripple effects. But even then, the person refrained from mentioning the name ‘Trump.’

This is what is unfolding on Wall Street in early 2026: How can firms help clients understand and prepare for his policy shocks without provoking Trump?

The answer increasingly appears to be: self-censorship.

Germany’s largest bank provided the latest high-profile case of this insecurity. As attendees arrived in Switzerland last Sunday for the World Economic Forum, George Saravelos, Senior FX Strategist at Deutsche Bank, issued a report to clients predicting that Europe’s willingness to hold US assets could decline amid Trump’s threat to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

By Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Bessent said that the bank’s CEO Zewen had called him in an attempt to distance the company from its widely circulated research report.

This incident has heightened fears in some Wall Street circles that the Trump administration’s willingness to single out individual executives and companies is driving self-censorship.

As one CEO of a major investment firm, who wished to remain anonymous, noted, executives express concerns privately among themselves but say almost nothing publicly, even as Trump announces sweeping reforms on US housing, credit card loans, and tariffs.

“This is what happens in authoritarian regimes,” wrote Timothy Ash, Senior Emerging Markets Sovereign Strategist at RBC BlueBay, in response to Bessent’s comments on social media. “It means checks and balances are removed, ultimately leading to poor policymaking.”

Laying low is a common reaction, especially among European executives. According to informed sources, some have instructed research teams to avoid sensitive topics. Restrictions on analysts’ public statements tend to tighten as US-Europe tensions escalate.

Last year, a major European financial institution began urging employees in certain divisions to refrain from making controversial comments involving the world’s two largest economies. According to insiders, these verbal warnings focused on appearances in research and public forums but also restricted internal discussions.

Part of the concern lies in the possibility that if an analyst were to anger the Trump administration, it could hinder the company’s ability to conduct business in the United States. For instance, officials might refuse to renew work visas.

“There is now a pervasive culture of fear,” said Tom Kirchmaier, a professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.

Even Jamie Dimon, the outspoken elder statesman of American banking and CEO of JPMorgan, adopted a moderate stance when asked about Trump’s recent actions on stage at Davos. “I want a stronger NATO and a stronger Europe,” Dimon said during a fireside chat. “Some of what Trump has done is leading to that, and some is not.”

Nevertheless, Dimon countered the notion that business leaders are afraid to be candid with the government, noting that he is “not a supporter of tariffs” and believes the administration should change its approach to immigration. “I’ve said it. What more do you want me to say?” Dimon remarked.

Meanwhile, Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel, urged other executives to proactively engage and speak frankly with Trump and his cabinet, stating they are more willing to listen to business interests than previous administrations.

“It’s a real mistake for American business leaders not to speak their minds,” said the billionaire behind the hedge fund and market-making firm. “This president may sometimes act out, but he does listen.”

Over the past year, these ‘Trump moments’ have included mocking Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon on social media, suggesting he focus on his hobby as a DJ, and calling for the replacement of the bank’s chief economist after predicting that tariffs would become an increasingly heavy burden on consumers.

In May last year, Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communications, criticized Moody’s economist Mark Zandi as a ‘Never Trumper’ following Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating.

A senior analyst at a U.S. investment bank, who was not authorized to speak publicly, stated that many analysts harbor concerns about potential criticism from Trump when issuing reports.

In fact, JPMorgan strategist Michael Cembalest caused a stir last year when he redacted portions of a research report, citing concerns for the firm and his colleagues as the reason for withholding certain materials.

Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick stated in an interview that the goal should be to produce independent, influential research reports without unnecessary attacks.

“Writing research reports just to provoke and gain your ‘Warhol moment’ (referring to fleeting fame) is not fair to institutions,” he said. “It can put specific governments or anyone in an awkward position.”

Whether the criticism is proven or policies are abandoned is not always the most important factor. In the case of Deutsche Bank’s report, Saravelos’ concerns were, to some extent, prescient.

AkademikerPension, a Danish pension fund managing approximately $25 billion in savings, stated that it plans to exit U.S. Treasury bonds by the end of the month. Swedish pension fund Alecta said it had sold most of its U.S. Treasury holdings since early last year due to the unpredictability of U.S. policies, budget deficits, and national debt.

A spokesperson for Deutsche Bank stated that the bank does not comment on conversations with governments and noted that its researchers operate independently. “Therefore, the views expressed in individual research reports do not necessarily represent the opinions of the bank’s management.”