Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Editor's Picks
Fifty years ago today, North Vietnamese troops seized Saigon, and ended the Vietnam war with a communist victory. GZERO writers and producers have taken a deep dive into the history behind this solemn occasion, exploring life in Saigon during the war, the emotional and chaotic scenes that unfolded as thousands fled, the life Vietnamese-Americans built from scratch in their new homes, and asking whether we have learned the lessons of the war.
50 Years on, have we learned the Vietnam War's lessons?
Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies — and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to become a regional economic powerhouse.
Saigon’s Last Day: The fall, the flight, and the aftermath of the Vietnam War
Don Shearer, US Defense Department via National Archives
Saigon, April 29, 1975. For six weeks, South Vietnamese forces have been falling back in the face of a determined communist offensive. American troops have been gone for two years. The feeble government is in disarray. The people are traumatized by three decades of war and three million deaths.
Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” begins playing on radios across the capital.
Some Saigonese know it’s a sign: It is time to run.
Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, now a Columbia University history professor, was just five months old, the youngest of nine children. After a failed first escape attempt by helicopter, her family heard about an uncle with access to an oil transport boat. More than 100 refugees crammed aboard the small vessel, where they waited for hours to set sail. Nguyen’s father nearly became separated when he dashed back into the city in a futile attempt to find more relatives.
At nightfall, they finally departed, crossing enemy-controlled territory under cover of darkness before being ordered onto an ammunition barge floating off the coast, bursting with over 1,000 refugees.
“When the sun rose the next day, April 30, we realized Saigon had fallen,” says Nguyen.
Read more about the amazing stories of survival, and just what happened to Vietnam after the war here.
PODCAST: Revisiting the Vietnam War 50 years later, with authors Viet Thanh Nguyen and Mai Elliott
On the GZERO World Podcast, two authors with personal ties to the Vietnam War reflect on its enduring legacy and Vietnam’s remarkable rise as a modern geopolitical player.
Life in Saigon during the Vietnam War
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, author Mai Elliott recalls how witnessing the human toll of the Vietnam War firsthand changed her views — and forced her to keep a life-altering secret from her own family.
Growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in 1980s America
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer,Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen shares what it was like growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in the US — and how the Americans around him often misunderstood the emotional toll of displacement.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks at the Institute of International Finance (IIF) Global Outlook Forum on sidelines of the IMF and World Bank’s 2025 annual Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C.,U.S., April 23, 2025.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed international financiers at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, on Wednesday morning, saying that “America First does not mean America alone” but “fairness in the international economic system.”
What does he see as fair? Rebalancing trade and ending the global economy’s overreliance on US demand. “This status quo of large and persistent imbalances is not sustainable,” he said, defending Donald Trump’s tariffs and commending the “more than 100 countries” he says are negotiating with the administration to reduce trade surpluses with the US.
The biggest offender. Speaking with reporters, Bessent rejected rumors that Trump might reduce tariffs on China ahead of talks with Xi Jinping, stressing that any easing would have to be reciprocal.
His speech eased concerns that the Trump administration would withdraw US support from the IMF and World Bank but made clear it would use its influence to reshape the Bretton Woods institutions. To maintain US backing, Bessent said the IMF and World Bank must return to their factory settings. He diagnosed them with “mission creep,” calling on them to stop devoting “disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender, and social issues.”
He also urged tighter lending standards, limiting who qualifies for loans and reducing how long borrowers can remain in arrears. In a pointed message, he called for China – the world’s second-largest economy – to be stripped of its “developing country” status.
“The Trump administration will leverage US leadership and influence at these institutions and push them to accomplish these important mandates.”
Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas speaks during a press briefing on the World Economic Outlook during the 2025 World Bank and IMF Spring Meetings on April 22, 2025 in Washington, DC.
“Just since January, we’ve entered into a new era,” IMF’s Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas told the press Tuesday at the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. He explained why the IMF had just downgraded global economic growth expectations for 2025, from 3.3% to 2.8%, and global trade growth by more than half, from 3.8% last year to 1.7%.
Why? Global tariff rates are at their highest level since the Great Depression, following Donald Trump’s imposition of a 10% tariff on nearly all imports, along with duties of at least 145% on Chinese goods entering the United States. In a closed-door session with investors at a JP Morgan conference on Tuesday, US Trade Secretary Scott Bessent said that while the US will eventually de-escalate the trade war with China, negotiations with Beijing have yet to begin — and the process, he warned, will be a “slog.”
But an eventual de-escalation won’t alleviate concerns. “Beyond the tariffs themselves, the surge in policy uncertainty — related to trade policy but also more broadly — is a major driver of the economic outlook,” Gourinchas said. As a result, the US saw the sharpest downgrade among wealthy economies, with its expected 2025 growth falling from 2.7% to 1.8%.
Gourinchas notes that the downgrade could be temporary — if tariffs are rolled back and policy stability returns — but the IMF has raised the likelihood of a US recession this year to 40%, up from 25%.
All eyes are now on signals from the White House. Anticipation is building for Wednesday, when the Trump administration is expected to officially weigh in — and potentially upend the conversation. The administration has been hostile to international organizations like USAID and the United Nations, and some fear that the World Bank or the IMF could be next on the chopping block. Bessent is set to address the Institute of International Finance in the morning, followed by a high-stakes dinner with G20 leaders that evening.
GZERO will be watching to see how he responds to the IMF’s downgrade — and whether he offers any guidance to the institution itself. Some expect the Trump administration to urge the IMF to return to its traditional focus on balance of payments and debt crises, moving away from more progressive initiatives like supporting climate adaptation or promoting gender equality.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order to start the elimination of the Department of Education on March 20, 2025.
Nearing the end of his first 100 days, a milestone he’ll hit on April 30, Donald Trump has already shattered records with 124 executive orders — more than any other president. But he has signed just five new bills into law, a historic low, and many of his EOs are facing legal challenges, while some – like his bids to end birthright citizenship, freeze foreign aid, and ban transgender military service members – have been temporarily blocked.
Trump’s controversial executive orders have grabbed plenty of headlines, but what about the less-contentious ones? We know it’s a lot to keep up with, so here are a few you may have missed:
Scrub a dub dub dub STRONGER
Think of Trump next time you shower. Thanks to the executive order “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads,” the White House is taking aim at what it sees as the “left’s war on water pressure,” ensuring that showerheads will no longer “be weak and worthless.”
The order takes issue with Obama- and Biden-era regulations that lowered the amount of water shower heads could spout to decrease America’s water usage, arguing that the “13,000-word” regulation had turned the household appliance into a hydrodynamic device of bureaucratic oppression. Now, showers will be required to produce 2.5-gallons-per-minute, just in time for Earth Day, which is Tuesday, April 22.
Cutting out checks
Trump’s order “Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account,” will officially bring an end to the government issuing or accepting checks by the end of September.
While check usage has been steadily declining, the US still clings to them more than any other country — writing 10 times as many as Britain, Australia, Italy, Germany, and France combined. That’s largely due to America’s highly fragmented banking system. Since the federal government is one of the biggest check writers, this move could mark the beginning of the end for checks in the US — a payment method still commonly used by small businesses, contractors, and for charity donations.
Check writing in America is also deeply generational, with seniors aged 65 and up far the biggest users. So, if you’re hoping for a birthday check from grandma next year, set her up on Venmo.
Cartels designated terrorists, and deportations followed
A major part of Trump’s push to increase deportations is tied to an executive order called “Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” This order gives the US government powerful new tools by officially labeling drug cartels and similar groups as terrorist organizations. It allows authorities to freeze their assets, ban members from traveling, hit them with tough sanctions, and prosecute them — along with anyone connected to them — even outside the US.
The move has already caused tension with Mexico, especially after the US used the order to justify flying surveillance drones into Mexican territory.
This policy works in tandem with another executive order, the “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua.” Now that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has been designated a terrorist group, this order allows the government to immediately detain and deport suspected members. Some Venezuelan migrants have already been deported to El Salvador, although further deportations are currently paused due to legal challenges.
Mining influence
Another executive order “Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” directs the Federal Reserve — and by extension, the government — to be directly involved in buying and selling cryptocurrency. The reserve would hold five types of cryptocurrency, including 200,000 Bitcoin tokens seized from criminal cases — worth over $17 billion. With a reserve in place, those holdings could expand beyond Bitcoin to include Ether, along with three lesser-known cryptocurrencies: XRP, Solana, and Cardano.
Since cryptocurrency is still relatively new, the US taking this step will make it a key player in this emerging industry, potentially putting it in a position to influence prices. Trump has embraced cryptocurrency on the campaign trail and in his administration’s infancy, collecting millions of dollars in donations from crypto investors and founders and attending a crypto summit in March.
Make America Healthy Again
Trump has signed executive orders on health. The first, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,”creates an initiative to study key health issues like rising rates of chronic disease, the overuse of prescription drugs, poor nutrition standards, and how much influence the food and pharmaceutical industries have on regulations.
It will also lay the foundation for possible changes to things like vaccine schedules and food-labeling rules.
The second executive order, “Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information,” will require hospitals, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies to be more transparent about their prices.
The goal is to help patients clearly see what insurance plans, medical procedures, and prescription drugs actually cost, so they can make informed choices instead of relying on vague estimates or confusing information.
As we pass the 100-day mark, Trump’s executive orders have touched everything from Bitcoin to bathtime — and there’s no sign he’s slowing down. But the real test will be whether he can turn these policy priorities into lasting change by securing funding in the next congressional budget or getting them written into law.
American backsliding, Trump-Xi standoff, Iran bombing, and more: Your questions, answered
Collage of Ian Bremmer, Donald Trump, and other world leaders.
If you feel like you're drowning in the 24-hour news tsunami lately, you're not alone. Headlines are moving at the speed of light, massively consequential policies are being announced (then rolled back) via social media, and longstanding global alliances seem to shift with each passing day. It's hard enough just trying to keep up, let alone separate the signal from the noise.
Because a weekly long-form column often can't do justice to everything happening simultaneously across our increasingly chaotic world, I invited readers to ask their most pressing questions on all things political and geopolitical. You wanted to know about everything from the contents of Donald Trump’s heart to the risk of a Taiwan invasion to the future of the dollar and, yes, whether I'd ride Moose like a moose jockey given the opportunity.
Below is the first batch of answers, with questions lightly edited for clarity. If you have something you’d like to ask me, submit your questions here and I’ll take as many as I can in the upcoming weeks.
Let's dive in.
How well do you think the outside world truly understands the goals and motivations of the Trump administration?
Not particularly well, since it's unclear for people in the United States, too. President Trump individually concentrates so much more decision-making authority than any other president in modern US history, which is why the on-again-off-again tariff policy has been so chaotic. Past administrations have not necessarily been more transparent – Trump certainly speaks his mind constantly – but they have been far more process and consensus-driven.
Still, there is an underlying driver helping explain Trump’s actions: the use and abuse of power to bring about the president’s favored outcomes in one-on-one settings and, relatedly, to eliminate any checks on his authority domestically (vis-à-vis Congress and the courts) and internationally (multilateral frameworks, standards, commitments, treaties, agreements, etc.). That – Trump’s will to power – more than any concrete policy agenda is the unifying thread. Remember, Trump was a Democrat before he was a Republican. Ultimately, he’s driven not by ideology but by the search for maximum leverage he can use to crush opponents and score “wins.”
Are you concerned at all about the possibility of regime change in the US? On a daily basis, the Trump administration is doing stuff right out of a totalitarian playbook, and everybody seems to be folding their cards because they either don't understand the stakes or they hope it's somehow going to pass. As a scared European from a country with a totalitarian past, I personally doubt it will.
I’m less concerned than some because of the decentralized nature of America’s federal government (with many critical functions, including election administration, delegated to state and local authorities) as well as our professionalized, independent military. Trump’s authoritarian impulses also remain constrained by the president’s own lack of discipline and interest in the business of governance. This was the case during his first term and is still true now, as both Signalgate and Liberation Day made clear.
On the other hand, President Trump is far less constrained politically than last time, having consolidated control of the GOP, surrounded himself with yes men who encourage his most destructive whims, and asserted absolute power over the entire federal government. He’s also less constrained by markets/the private sector and the reelection imperative, and he faces a Democratic Party in absolute disarray.
The upshot is Trump won’t be as effective as many fear in undoing checks and balances, largely because his authoritarianism will continue to be tempered by his policymaking incompetence. But I admit that the risk of serious, structural damage to the US rule of law and democratic institutions is growing. I’m more concerned about this than I thought I’d be three months ago.
While globalization has been a boon for the US consumer, it has assisted in the relative decline of US manufacturing over the past 40 years. What policies would you recommend, if any, to (re)grow US manufacturing?
Not Trump’s present tariff policy, which will hurt rather than help US manufacturing. A majority of America’s goods imports are intermediate inputs, capital equipment, and raw materials that US manufacturers rely on to produce other goods, both for domestic consumption and for export. By making these imports more expensive, tariffs harm US producers and exporters (in addition to consumers via higher prices). Add to that the massive uncertainty about what tariff changes tomorrow may bring, and there are also no incentives for companies to build new factories in America.
Globalization is not principally responsible for the decline of US manufacturing over the past half-century. Productivity improvements and automation have reduced the need for manufacturing workers everywhere (even China is now seeing deindustrialization!). In fact, as a very rich country at the productivity frontier, America produces more value-added in manufacturing output today than ever before; it just takes fewer workers than it did after World War 2 to do that. That’s obviously sad for the individuals and communities that have lost jobs. In the aggregate, though, the decline in US manufacturing employment has been offset by an increase in higher-paying service-sector jobs (the average service worker gets paid more than the average manufacturing worker). If you wanted to increase manufacturing jobs, you’d have to either shift people out of those better-paying (often more comfortable) service jobs or grow the population (tough given the administration’s crackdown on immigration).
Now, there are strategic and national security reasons to protect and reshore select industries like semiconductors or batteries. But if you want to boost manufacturing in these core industries, the way to do it is through smart industrial policy: targeted subsidies, tax credits, state and local incentives, direct investments … like the Biden administration’s bipartisan CHIPS Act, which was followed by a manufacturing investment boom.
So maybe start by not undermining good programs for political reasons. Don't beat up on friends and adversaries simultaneously when what you need is to coordinate and trade more with allies. And focus on the broader ecosystem needed to foster investment and build a domestic manufacturing base. That means bolstering the scientific, research, and educational institutions that have made the US a magnet for world-class talent and innovation. Building better infrastructure to increase manufacturing productivity. And ensuring a stable, predictable business environment anchored in the rule of law.
Who blinks first, Xi or Trump? How could they de-escalate their trade tiff given their personal distaste for losing face?
Trump already has, with the unilateral exemption granted to electronic products like semiconductors and smartphones (even if it turns out to be temporary). The question is how many times he needs to blink before there's a climbdown. As they say, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man, and at least since Covid, Xi has been convinced that China is facing a bipartisan strategy of containment from a hardline United States. Even with the latest exclusions, Trump’s tariffs are so high as to essentially amount to a trade embargo. Combine that with the concerted US efforts to crush Chinese tariff circumvention through third countries, and we’re already seeing the unmanaged decoupling of the most important geopolitical relationship in the world.
Given the deep structural mistrust between the two sides and Beijing’s political ability to “fight until the end,” I don’t see how you can put the toothpaste back in the tube. At most you can get a truce, and only as a result of a direct meeting between Xi and Trump. But Xi has little interest in negotiating directly with Trump at this stage, as it would be a sign of weakness and he doesn’t see the US president as a credible interlocutor.
In the current context, what is keeping China from invading Taiwan? What conditions are they waiting to have in place before "pulling the trigger," so to speak?
I see this scenario as extremely unlikely in the near term. Sure, Trump has basically broadcast that he doesn’t care about territorial integrity, and you could plausibly extend his treatment of Ukraine to Taiwan. But his cabinet is also full of China hawks, and if there’s one US ally every Republican in Washington wants to defend, it’s Taiwan against China. Beijing knows a full-scale invasion would risk direct war with the United States, which would be incredibly destructive to the Chinese economy at a time when they can hardly afford it.
Radical uncertainty about Trump’s response function makes Chinese leaders even more cautious than they normally would be. Beijing would rather wait to invade until the military balance more decisively favors China, its economy is on more solid footing, and the US is led by a more predictable president. But expect them to test US resolve and probe Trump’s response with incremental escalations across the board, none of which should be big enough to lead to a crisis on their own. The risk, however, is that as the US-China relationship breaks down, any accident or miscalculation could escalate into a military crisis given the lack of any conflict resolution channels.
Isn't it possible that Trump's creepy Russia obsession has to do with trying to get Russia as an ally against China?
In part, though there are plenty of other explanations (from his affinity for strongmen, transactional nature, and dislike for Vladimir Putin’s European and “woke” enemies, to his belief that the US shouldn’t waste resources on a war that isn’t core to American interests and Ukraine can’t win). At times, Trump seems more interested in cutting deals with both Putin and Xi Jinping to carve the world into spheres of influence.
But in any case, it’s unrealistic to think Trump could pull off a “reverse Nixon” given Russia and China’s shared interest in a post-American international order and deep commercial, energy, and technological ties. These are not the same countries that Henry Kissinger drove a wedge between 50 years ago (nor are they likely to change anytime soon). There’s nothing that the president of a democratic United States, even one as weakly constrained and authoritarian-minded as Trump, can credibly offer Putin that remotely competes with the kind of long-term strategic alignment he shares with Xi.
In fact, a Trump-brokered ceasefire in Ukraine and/or a US normalization of relations with Russia might actually strengthen Sino-Russian ties by allowing Beijing to fully embrace its “no limits” friendship with Moscow without risking US sanctions or jeopardizing its relations with Europe.
Given Trump's historically aggressive approach towards Iran and desire to distract from the tariff disaster, how high are your odds that the US and/or Israel will bomb Iran within the next 6 weeks?
Reasonably low since Trump doesn't want a war and is fully committed to trying engagement first, despite Israeli opposition. The difference in the American and Israeli positions is interesting: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently demanded a verifiable end to Iran’s entire nuclear program, whereas Trump seems to have lowered the bar to no weaponization. This is a condition that the Iranians, who have always maintained they have no intention to build a bomb, could potentially live with given their present historical weakness. The odds of an agreement are higher than they have been in a decade.
The Israelis might try to derail the negotiation effort diplomatically and even engage in some low-level provocations to spoil the Iranians’ mood, but they won't directly launch major strikes that could blow back in their face. Publicly sabotaging Trump would be far too risky.
What is the likelihood of the dollar losing its reserve currency status?
Dollar dominance is being eroded by Trump’s unpredictability and policy mix, which have caused a loss of confidence in the US government – and, accordingly, prompted investors to reprice the safety premium commanded by dollar assets.
But losing reserve currency status? That doesn't look imminent given the lack of viable alternatives. The yuan is not, in fact, convertible; China has to resort to draconian capital controls to prevent capital flight, and the country lacks the investor protections, institutional quality, and business environment required to internationalize its currency. The euro is the currency of a still-too-fragmented economic area mired in slow growth and high debt, with shallow capital markets and no banking, fiscal, or political union, where nativist parties could well gain power in the next five years and destabilize domestic politics. And cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are highly volatile, speculative assets with zero intrinsic or legislated value (unlike, say, the dollar, which is backed by America’s current and future wealth – and by the US government’s ability to tax it).
You can’t replace something with nothing, so the dollar’s special status is safe … for now. But Trump’s destruction of America’s reputational capital will cost the country dearly in the years to come. After all, every reserve currency that came before the dollar was dominant until it wasn’t. Investors have historically wanted to hold greenbacks because America’s economic, political, and institutional fundamentals inspired trust. Lose those fundamentals and you lose that trust.
Do you find that your Boston accent helps you come across as authentic?
It’s the first time I've ever considered that. I’d like to think it’s mostly down to being honest with people and not taking myself too seriously. But sure, why not? Can’t hurt.
What is Moose's favorite toy? And was it made in China?
Presently, a squeaky watermelon (it used to be a small bouncy orange ball, but he can't see as well as he used to so he's adapted). No idea where it was made.
President Trump takes calls about his ever-changing tariffs plan. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more PUPPET REGIME here!
Trump has deployed his most disruptive weapon yet against China. Will it work? #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!