Who control the world?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The world is not "controlled" by a single actor; control is distributed across overlapping centers of power—states with military and economic reach, multinational corporations and tech elites who govern infrastructure and markets, and international institutions and transnational networks that shape rules and norms [1] [2] [3]. Recent reporting shows that the United States, China, and Russia remain dominant poles while technological, energy, and institutional shifts are producing new, contested arenas of influence [1] [4] [5].
1. Nation-states still set the baseline tempo of geopolitics
Traditional levers of control—military capacity, economic scale, alliance networks and diplomatic leadership—remain concentrated in a small group of states, with the United States ranked highest in composite power in 2025 and China and Russia following closely, meaning these states largely shape global security and market expectations [1] [4] [6]. That said, scholarship and policy reporting emphasize polarization and multipolarity: emerging middle powers and regional blocs are contesting Western-dominated arrangements, complicating any single-state narrative of control [7] [8].
2. Corporations and tech elites exercise structural, everyday power
Multinational enterprises increasingly possess structural power—control over R&D, production networks, finance and digital platforms—which lets them shape economic outcomes and regulatory space in ways that can outstrip individual states’ reach [2]. Parallel reporting argues that tech founders and platform operators are becoming “nodes” through which commerce, information flows, and even public legitimacy pass, shifting where practical control over daily life and discourse resides [9].
3. Technology — especially AI and semiconductors — is the new battleground for influence
Analysts warn that dominance in AI, advanced compute and critical technologies will redefine strategic advantage; both state-led AI drives (notably China’s plans) and private-sector innovation are central to who can project future influence, making technological leadership a primary axis of control in coming decades [5] [10]. Control of semiconductor supply chains and advanced networks translates directly into leverage over economies and militaries, elevating private and state actors who command those chains [2] [11].
4. Energy transitions reconfigure geopolitical leverage
Shifts in energy — electric vehicles, changing oil demand, nuclear interest and supply-chain security — are altering who controls resources that undergird power; China’s role in EVs and changing oil dynamics are examples of how energy transition can redistribute leverage between producers and consumers [12] [11]. The World Economic Forum and sector reporting show national security framing of energy and trade, meaning states will increasingly securitize what were once market problems [11].
5. International institutions and norms mediate but don’t monopolize control
Global institutions provide forums and rules that can constrain or enable actors, yet structural imbalances—such as the UN Security Council veto held by five permanent members—limit decisive multilateral action and preserve great-power privileges, underscoring that institutions are instruments of power, not independent controllers [3]. Reports also show middle powers using diplomacy and coalition-building to punch above their weight, indicating institutions remain a battleground for influence rather than a neutral governor [7].
6. Control is networked, contested and situational—no single conspiracy, many overlapping interests
Contemporary power is best described as plural and networked: formal state authority, corporate command of infrastructure, tech-platform governance, resource control, and normative power interact and clash in issue-specific ways, producing contested outcomes rather than unitary control [2] [9] [8]. Different actors dominate different domains—military, market, digital, normative—so “who controls the world” depends on the question asked: security, economy, information or environment [4] [5] [11]. Reporting warns against simplistic narratives that attribute monolithic control to secret cabals; instead, visible shifts (tech races, energy transitions, alliance realignments) and hidden agendas (corporate profit motives, state status-seeking) together shape who wins influence in particular spheres [10] [9].