Senator Rob Portman and economic advisor Brian Deese are a pair of public servants who—on paper, at least—don’t seem to have much in common. They hail from different political parties, and they have advocated different approaches to the problems and opportunities that America faces. But they do share a commitment to this country’s prosperity—and that commonality recently found them together at the Aspen Institute, serving as co-chairs for a private forum on the future of US economic competitiveness.
The Aspen Forum on American Economic Competitiveness was not a debate played out in public. There were no cameras, no press briefings, no hashtags. Instead, it offered something increasingly rare: honest conversation, mutual respect, and a willingness to wrestle with complexity. The two co-chairs presided behind closed doors at the Aspen Meadows Resort, gathering business leaders, policymakers, economists, and strategists to debate the direction of American industrial policy, tariffs, energy infrastructure, regulatory systems, and the country’s shifting posture in global trade. The goal was to answer one fundamental question: What will it take for the United States to maintain and increase its economic competitiveness in a fractured world?
Who led the discussion
Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, has served as both a U.S. Senator and U.S. Trade Representative. Throughout his career, he has been a champion of free trade, balanced budgets, and bipartisan legislative problem-solving. Portman has consistently supported market-based strategies, international engagement, and policies that strengthen US leadership in global commerce.
Brian Deese, a Democrat, served as Director of the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden and previously held senior roles at both the Obama White House and BlackRock. A principal architect of the Inflation Reduction Act, Deese has emphasized climate-aligned industrial policy, modernized supply chains, and the strategic use of public investment to accelerate long-term economic resilience.
While their policy instincts diverge—Portman favors limited government and trade liberalization, while Deese advocates for targeted federal investment and sustainable industry transformation—their collaboration at Aspen underscored a shared belief in the value of principled, cross-partisan engagement.
What was on the table
The Forum’s agenda addressed the major forces shaping American economic strategy today. Participants examined the evolving role of tariffs in global trade, the future of US industrial policy, and the pressures facing domestic energy infrastructure, especially in the context of advanced technologies and artificial intelligence. Sessions explored the complexities of US–China economic relations, supply chain resilience, and the balancing act between economic security and open markets. The group also considered how regulatory and competition policy frameworks can either foster or hinder innovation and global competitiveness. Each topic was approached with an eye toward long-term strategy and areas of potential bipartisan alignment.
Who was in the room
Roughly 60 participants joined the Forum, representing a wide range of experience and expertise across the public and private sectors, including former cabinet officials, corporate executives, economic researchers, legal scholars, philanthropists, and energy innovators. Attendees came from major financial institutions, tech firms, global research groups, bipartisan think tanks, and key regulatory and policy positions.
The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule to encourage open and candid dialogue, meaning participants are free to use the information shared, but not to reveal who said what. That spirit of trust and discretion helped foster the kind of conversation that is increasingly difficult to achieve in public settings.
Why it’s urgent
From artificial intelligence and domestic energy demand to global supply chain fragility and intensifying geopolitical tensions, the pressures on the American economy are mounting. At the same time, the United States is re-evaluating long-held assumptions about trade, industrial policy, and regulation, often amid intense political polarization.
This Forum was designed to offer a rare space for cross-sector, cross-partisan reflection. It brought urgency and humility to the task of reimagining how the US can remain globally competitive while navigating a period of rapid and disruptive change.
Why Aspen
Aspen Institute is uniquely built for this kind of moment. With no legislative agenda to push and no partisan scorecard to follow, Aspen provides a neutral forum where leaders can step outside of the headlines and into honest conversation.
At a time when public trust in institutions is low and the stakes of economic decision-making are high, this kind of space is more essential than ever.
What lies ahead
The Forum didn’t aim for consensus or deliver a set of sweeping policy recommendations. But it did offer something more foundational—the space to wrestle with tradeoffs, test assumptions, and explore areas of potential agreement. A forthcoming rapporteur’s report will distill key themes and insights from the discussion, offering a window into where there may be common ground—and where hard choices still lie ahead.
What the Forum affirmed is that American economic competitiveness is not the domain of one party, one sector, or one ideology. It’s a shared challenge—and one that demands shared leadership.
Senator Portman and Brian Deese may not agree on every point. But they agree that the stakes are high, and the conversation must continue.