Børge Brende Resigns from Leading WEF After Disclosure of Contacts with Jeffrey Epstein

Børge Brende stepped down from his position as President and CEO of the WEF on February 26, 2026. Although the decision coincided with the conclusion of an internal review concerning his contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, the investigation did not reveal new irregularities, and Brende justified his resignation as a desire to protect the Forum's image from further controversy. Part of the editorial teams emphasize that the reputational costs for the institution have become too high, even if the very nature of the contacts remains a subject of dispute. Concurrently, Swiss and international media describe that the WEF now faces the practical problem of succession and securing further funding and relations with partners. They also note that Davos has for years based its influence on reputation capital, which is why every crisis forces swift managerial decisions, including due diligence standards towards key individuals. „C'était une énorme erreur de passer du temps avec Epstein” (It was a huge mistake to spend time with Epstein) — Bill Gates

The World Economic Forum was founded in 1971 as a platform for dialogue between business and decision-makers. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier accused of sexual crimes, became a symbol of elite abuse after high-profile investigations and proceedings in the USA. In the wake of these cases, the importance of compliance standards and reputational control in public and private institutions has been growing for years.

Publications about the 'Epstein files' have broader effects than just the WEF dismissal. Some articles describe a domino effect in the academic world, pointing to personnel decisions concerning Harvard, including information about Professor Larry Summers resigning from his teaching position and pressure on other figures from the scientific community. Although media recall earlier suspensions of staff, the current wave of resignations mainly affects individuals directly named in the latest documents. Other materials shift attention to financial institutions and questions about their relations with Epstein, particularly the role of Deutsche Bank in maintaining business contacts with him despite risk signals. Political threads also appear, including reports about interest from American institutions in the case of individuals from power circles, which some headlines link to hearings in the U.S. Congress.

Media coverage shows differences in emphasis: some editorial teams treat Brende's dismissal as a corporate decision aimed at limiting losses, others describe it as proof of a systemic problem among elites and a failure of oversight. The common denominator remains that more names and institutions are reacting to reputational risk before full explanations of the circumstances are concluded. At this stage, articles more often describe the pressure and image effects than hard legal findings, which is why precise facts remain key: the scope of disclosed contacts, their nature, and what has been confirmed by independent reviews and institutions.