At a global summit devoted to women’s economic advancement, a panel discussion intended to highlight pathways to opportunity instead became a pointed exchange about power, branding and accountability.

The event, held in New York and attended by business leaders and policy experts, featured a conversation between Barack Obama and Ivanka Trump, who has long positioned herself as an advocate for female entrepreneurship and workforce participation. What unfolded onstage was less a clash of personalities than a contrast in governing philosophies — and in competing definitions of what constitutes “real-world” success.

Mr. Obama, speaking first, outlined policies he argued had expanded economic mobility during his administration: investments in education, support for child care and measures aimed at steady wage growth. His tone was measured and professorial, emphasizing incremental change and the role of public institutions in widening access to opportunity.

Ms. Trump, who served as a senior adviser in the White House during her father’s presidency, responded by questioning what she characterized as an overreliance on theory. She praised private enterprise as the engine of prosperity and suggested that durable wealth is created not through government programs but through business leadership and market growth. In her telling, empowerment stems from innovation and the discipline of profit and loss, not from policy frameworks crafted in Washington.

The exchange sharpened when Ms. Trump drew a distinction between political experience and business results, a formulation that echoed themes frequently invoked during her father’s campaigns. While she framed her remarks as respectful disagreement, the subtext was unmistakable: a suggestion that lived experience in the marketplace carries more weight than legislative accomplishment.

The ballroom, according to several attendees, fell noticeably quiet.

Mr. Obama did not match the intensity of the critique. Instead, he paused, took a sip of water and resumed in a deliberate cadence. He acknowledged the importance of private enterprise but argued that markets function best when paired with guardrails and public investment. “The real world,” he said, returning to a phrase Ms. Trump had used repeatedly, “includes the families who depend on steady paychecks, affordable health care and schools that prepare their children to compete.”

The moment that drew the most attention came when Mr. Obama referred to labor practices connected to factories abroad that had produced merchandise for Ms. Trump’s former fashion brand. Without theatrics, he cited publicly reported audits that had raised concerns in past years about long hours and wage issues at certain supplier facilities. He framed the reference not as an accusation but as an illustration of the complexities that accompany global business operations.

“What does empowerment mean,” he asked, “if the people who make the products struggle to share in the prosperity being promoted?”

Ms. Trump sought to pivot, emphasizing that large supply chains are difficult to monitor and that improvements had been pursued when concerns surfaced. She also suggested that business leaders are often subject to scrutiny that overlooks broader economic contributions, including job creation and philanthropy.

The exchange highlighted a broader tension that has animated American politics for more than a decade: the relative weight of inherited advantage versus earned advancement; the role of government in leveling the playing field; and the extent to which branding can substitute for measurable outcomes.

Mr. Obama alluded to his own trajectory, describing an ascent shaped by community organizing, legislative compromise and the slow work of coalition-building. Leadership, he suggested, is not only about signing paychecks but about shaping systems that allow millions to do so with dignity. He contrasted that view with what he characterized as the power of a surname and access to capital — advantages that, he implied, are not universally available.

For some in the audience, the exchange felt less like a policy seminar and more like a referendum on authenticity. Ms. Trump has often sought to position herself as a moderating influence within her father’s orbit, emphasizing issues such as paid family leave and workforce training. Critics, however, have argued that those efforts were constrained by broader administration policies and that her business record complicates her messaging.

In interviews after the panel, attendees described the atmosphere as reflective rather than combative. “It wasn’t a shouting match,” said one executive who asked not to be named because she was not authorized to speak publicly. “It was a contrast in philosophies. You could feel the room processing what leadership means in practice.”

The episode also underscored the evolving stage on which political reputations are tested. High-profile forums that once centered on applause lines increasingly function as arenas for real-time fact-checking and historical recall. Assertions about empowerment, whether rooted in public policy or corporate strategy, are likely to be measured against documented records.

By the close of the session, neither participant had fully yielded ground. But the exchange left an impression that extended beyond the ballroom: a reminder that in contemporary debates over economic mobility, image and narrative can collide with evidence — and that the definition of “the real world” remains deeply contested.