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.
News
How Trump fails, nuclearization, geopolitics on AI, and more: Your questions, answered
This is the third and last mailbag of the spring season. Check out the previous two here and here. I will resume the newsletter’s regularly scheduled programming next week, but I hope you’ve found this detour from long-form columns valuable and that I’ve covered some of the things that might have been on your mind.
Here we go (as always, questions lightly edited for clarity).
Gun to your head, what Democrat stands the best chance of becoming president in 2028?
Given how much the country – and the world – will change in the next couple of years, I suspect it'll be someone that nobody has on their shortlist right now. Or did you put money on “The Apprentice” host changing the course of history back in 2013?
School taught us the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances, yet I don't see Congress stepping in to curb a dictator-type president. Why?
The system of checks and balances the framers designed in 1787 is resilient, but it has never been failproof. After all, the Constitution is a piece of paper – it isn’t self-enforcing. Ben Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” shows the Founding Fathers recognized as much. One of the things the system needs to work is vigorous conflict between the branches. In other words, elected officials (looking at you, lawmakers) need to be willing to put duty to their office and their country above loyalty to their party.
But the modern American political system, with nationalized parties facing nationalized interests, nationalized polarization, and nationalized partisan media, has no ambition “to counteract ambition” as James Madison intended. This is especially true in Donald Trump’s GOP, which is cowed by the president’s political hold over the Republican voter base and media ecosystem. There’s also a big collective action problem – no one wants to be the first to stick their neck out, at least not until the crisis gets “big enough” to merit losing their jobs.
Given that virtually all of Trump’s actions are via executive orders and, therefore, can be overturned by the next administration, how big of a long-term effect do you think he will have?
Quite big. He’s setting precedents with the destruction of democratic norms, politicization of institutions, erosion of the rule of law, and expansion of executive authority that the next president will be able to build on if they so choose. As my colleagues and I flagged in this year’s Top Risk #2, Rule of Don, “Once precedents are broken by one party, the other tends to follow suit more easily.”
And let’s keep in mind there’s a decent chance the next president is someone Trump effectively anoints, which – presuming he’s still around after 2028 – could mean he’d still have a lot of direct influence. This assumes that free and fair elections are not materially disrupted through the weaponization of the “power ministries” (Justice Department, FBI, IRS). It’s far from my base case given state and local administration of elections, but still, a fatter tail risk than I’m comfortable with.
What’s the most likely way Trump can fail?
After hubris comes nemesis. The pattern is relatively familiar: Trump overplays his hand by picking more and bigger fights than he can win, gets kicked in the head by reality, and is either forced to backtrack or suffers a decline in the polls that threatens to splinter off Republicans in Congress and constrains his ability to implement his agenda.
Whether it’s China responding forcefully to the tariffs, markets revolting against attacks on Fed chair Jay Powell, or Harvard defending its academic independence, we’re already seeing meaningful snapback functions limiting the president. Not from traditional institutions, the courts, or multilateral treaties, but from powerful forces domestically and internationally that are refusing to take it on the chin. When you want to live by the law of the jungle and claim the title of apex predator, you have to win the big fights.
Will Trump’s dramatic “you are on your own” security messaging drive more countries to acquire their own nuclear weapons?
Absolutely, it’s a rational thing to consider in a G-Zero world. I doubt any of them will go nuclear over the next four years, but America’s unreliability already has a number of US allies and partners searching for alternatives to the US umbrella. Germany is likely to work out some form of nuclear-sharing with France and the United Kingdom, whose umbrella could extend across Europe and cover Poland as well. The Poles are also openly contemplating developing independent capabilities. South Korea and Japan are more likely to get their own nukes as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. The big open question is the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia (and maybe Turkey?) could also go down this path if Iran negotiations fail. Bottom line, we’re headed for an era of nuclear proliferation.
What did you think the G-Zero meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?
How should Canada manage the small but important risk of invasion from the US?
By continuing to make clear that the threat is unacceptable – a view shared by a large majority of Americans, too. As Canadians just did by electing Mark Carney as prime minister, something that was unthinkable only a couple of months ago when his Liberal Party was dead in the water. That should tell Trump (who, by the way, had already ruled out direct military intervention) everything he needs to know about Canadians’ reaction function to foreign aggression.
Can American power be used to stop the bloodshed in Gaza and broker any kind of durable Israeli-Palestinian peace? Should it?
Should it? Of course. Can it? Not in any way that seems politically plausible. After all, Trump is even more pro-Israel than Biden was, and that was a high bar to clear already after what we saw last year. He doesn’t care about the well-being of the Palestinian population. And beyond Biden and Trump, most American voters don’t care enough about foreign lives to change their leaders’ calculus.
Absent heavy political pressure from Washington that isn’t coming, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has little reason to ease the pressure on Gaza, let alone to enter a broader peace process that could end his political career and maybe even land him in prison. Not only does he need to keep the far-right faction of his coalition onside, but most Israeli citizens now support the continuation of the fighting … and no longer support a two-state solution.
How do you think it will end between Ukraine and Russia? Will the Ukrainians be able to get their lands back?
Ukraine will be de facto partitioned, as we said in last year’s Top Risks report. That may be uncontroversial now, but it wasn’t a popular call to make in January 2024, when most of the West (to say nothing of the Ukrainians) was still demanding that Ukraine get all its land back. It wasn’t going to happen then, and it isn’t going to happen now. That would still be true if Kamala Harris had won the US presidency. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledges that Ukraine is militarily incapable of retaking all its territory, while Russia won’t agree to a voluntary return. The question is how much each side will lose – and how much leverage each will gain – by the time they decide enough’s enough. That time just hasn’t arrived yet.
How do you think AI will impact geopolitics by 2040?
I expect we will not recognize our geopolitical order. International relations presume a state-based system with major powers cooperating and competing in the diplomatic, economic, and security realms. Artificial intelligence will blow that premise out of the water. As the digital realm becomes the dominant geopolitical arena, we will shift to a hybrid order where technology companies and governments compete for influence.
States will either completely integrate AI into their systems of governance and decision-making or they’ll be left behind by non-state actors that are growing increasingly sovereign not just in the digital space but in society, the economy, and national security. Closed political systems will have an evolutionary advantage, as power will lie with whoever controls the most data. Open systems will increasingly move toward more centralization, lest they become marginalized in global influence.
In the long run, would you bet against the US? Is it still the land of opportunity?
I’d bet against all national governments in the long run. They are too slow-moving to adapt to what’s coming. Many people living in today’s United States may well continue to thrive in this future. But it will increasingly be up to us – not governments – to make ourselves fit for purpose.
If 75% of the world’s economy and 95% of the world’s population keep globalizing, especially its fastest-growing parts, is it accurate to talk about deglobalization?
No, you’re right, the world as a whole is not deglobalizing. Certainly not digitally, less so once the AI revolution goes truly global. But it is accurate to talk about the United States actively deglobalizing and the US-China relationship decoupling. Both of which have massive structural, long-term implications.
How can we return to a state where facts are less strongly disputed? Can social media ever recover from having become a manipulation-friendly propaganda machine?
Two small but useful, pro-social ideas to start. First, only verify actual people, not bots. Second, make platforms legally responsible for the content created and shared by large accounts that they algorithmically promote. The goal is not to constrain free speech – which, to be clear, should be protected according to our constitution and laws – but to weaken the present incentives to intentionally engineer and maximize outrage and anger to drive user engagement at the expense of our societies and democracies.
Why should I care so much about what’s going on in the world? It feels like it’s more of a headache than anything else. I am doing nothing with all the information that I absorb except complain, get angry, stand in disbelief, and of course, enjoy a lot of memes. But it weighs on me, and sometimes I wonder what the point is.
Because it involves your fellow humans. They’re just like you, only slightly more irritating. And they’re all we have. They’re worth caring about, even if you, your family, and your friends are all doing just fine. Because those people suffering in lands near and far could be you, your family, or your friends. That they aren’t is just an accident, luck of the draw. As John Donne wrote, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” If you hear a bell tolling … it may well be tolling for you, my friend.
With all of the chaos unfolding in the US, do you ever wish that you were back in Antarctica?
Not in the slightest. It’s way too cold, and there’s nothing much interesting happening there. Though the whole no Wi-Fi thing would be occasionally welcome.
Does Moose profit from your use of his name, image, and likeness? If not, can I offer him some pro bono legal assistance?
Moose is in it for the art, not the money. Plus, he’s family. He gets two, sometimes three, meals a day – even on days when his content doesn’t perform very well.
Hear: the sounds of lost souls. In 1964, as US involvement in Vietnam was deepening, the US army unveiled a terrifying new psychological weapon. Sound designers working with early audio editing technology made harrowing soundscapes featuring the “lost souls” of North Vietnamese soldiers whose bodies hadn’t been properly buried. The wailing and shrieking of these “souls” – in reality, they were the voices of local US army employees – was broadcast via speakers at night in the jungles around villages thought to be sympathetic to the Communists. The idea, cooked up by army psyop experts and Madison Avenue advertising mavens, was to tap into deep-seated Vietnamese fears about the spiritual anguish of being left unburied. This Radiolab episode tells the whole story and makes a (perhaps imperfect) parallel with the recorded voices of America’s own dead. – Alex K
Read: “Ministry of Time,” by Kaliane Bradley. If you are fascinated by the ill-fated 1840s explorations to find the Northwest Passage – an Arctic link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans – you will enjoy this fictional, time-traveling romp, which focuses on Lt. Graham Gore, who was aboard the doomed HMS Erebus when it went missing. The “Ministry” of the title rescues Gore from death and throws him two centuries forward into modern London, where the story follows his struggle to understand today’s world amid a budding romance with an unnamed minder from the Ministry. It’s the debut novel from Bradley, a British-Cambodian writer who started it as a fan fiction of sorts. While you could poke holes in the plot, it’s intriguing, fast-paced, and will leave you wanting a sequel. Alas, she hasn’t committed to one – yet. (Perhaps the Ministry knows more than we do about this!) – Tracy
Read: “Too Much Happiness,”by Alice Munro. Munro never ceases to amaze me, and this collection of 10 short stories that my editor, Tracy Moran, plucked out of one of those free library boxes for me, is no different. Each is so full of humanity, empathy, and powerful portrayals of women’s experiences. If the election this week is inspiring you to read something Canadian, I highly recommend this collection. – Riley
An armored vehicle of Nigerian Security Forces drives by newly built homes, ahead of the community re-opening ceremony which was destroyed by Boko Haram armed militants in 2015, in Ngarannam, Borno State, Nigeria, October 21, 2022.
There has been a rise in attacks in northeastern Nigeria by Boko Haram and a rival group called the Islamic State West Africa Province, spurring concerns that jihadists might be making a strong return in the region. At least 22 people were killed in attacks over the weekend in the northeastern states of Adamawa and Borno, and another 26 died on Monday when a bomb exploded in two vehicles in Borno.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, Salafi-jihadi groups are gaining strength in parts of Nigeria beyond their usual strongholds in the northeast. In the north-central and northwestern regions, these groups are linked to Boko Haram, al-Qaida, and Islamic State branches in West Africa.
Why it matters? Jihadist groups in Nigeria are suspected of working to expand al-Qaida and Islamic State operations near the Gulf of Guinea and the Sahel – a major region economically, holding 2.7% of the world’s gas reserves and 4.5% of its oil.
Experts have been warning that weaker international and regional counterterrorism efforts were allowing terrorist groups to grow and increasingly cooperate, spreading instability across an already fragile, and economically critical, region.A member of the Syrian security forces gestures next to a vehicle at the entrance of the Druze town of Jaramana, following deadly clashes sparked by a purported recording of a Druze man cursing the Prophet Mohammad, which angered Sunni gunmen southeast of Damascus, Syria, on April 29, 2025.
10: At least 10 people were killed in sectarian clashes outside Damascus late Monday. The firefight erupted between pro-government Sunni fighters and gunmen belonging to the Druze minority after a Druze cleric was blamed for an audio recording that insulted the Prophet Muhammad. Containing sectarian violence is a top concern for the post-Assad government as it seeks to rebuild the war-torn country. In response to the violence and threats against the Druze minority, Israel conducted what it called a “warning operation” on Wednesday, targeting an armed group in Syria’s Damascus province.
24-36: Pakistan’s information minister claimed on Tuesday that the country has “credible intelligence” that India may launch a military strike within 24 to 36 hours. The warning follows India’s accusation that Pakistan-backed militants were responsible for an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last week that killed 26 tourists — a charge Islamabad denies.
2: Donald Trump on Monday reduced the tariff burden on US-based car manufacturers by ensuring that the 25% levies on vehicles and parts don’t pile on top of existing duties, such as those on imported steel and aluminum. He also provided tariff rebates on foreign parts to automakers operating in the US for a two-year period, giving them more time to shift their supply chains.
84: In Germany’s parliament late Tuesday, 84% of Social Democratic Party members strongly supported the party’s proposal to join a coalition government with the Christian Democratic bloc. Friedrich Merz, leader of the center-right party that won the February election, is set to be officially appointed chancellor next week. His main priority? Reviving Germany’s struggling economy.
10,000: Roughly 10,000 cases of acute malnutrition have been registered among children in Gaza so far this year, according to a new UN report. Overall, about 60,000 children there are chronically underfed. Israel has blocked all aid deliveries to the enclave since March 2, saying that Hamas hijacks humanitarian convoys. Dozens of local and internationally run community kitchens have run out of supplies and been forced to close in recent weeks.
3: On Tuesday, after just three months of freedom, Cuban dissident Jose Daniel Ferrerwas arrested again on charges that he had violated his parole agreement. Ferrer, one of the few high-profile opponents of the island’s communist dictatorship, was released earlier this year as part of a Vatican-brokered deal. The Castro regime continues to wield significant influence in Cuba, even amid a crippling economic crisis that has driven more than a fifth of the population abroad since 2022.Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks with members of the media as he walks into his office after the Liberal Party staged a major political comeback to retain power in parliamentary elections, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on April 29, 2025.
Prime Minister Mark Carney may have won the battle for power in Canada, but his country’s war of words with US President Donald Trump is only just beginning. And before that all begins, the Liberal leader must form a government.
Carney has options. The Liberal Party is projected to fall just three seats shy of a majority. Even so, the former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor is unlikely to seek a confidence-and-supply agreement, according to Eurasia Group senior analyst Graeme Thompson, even though Bloc Quebecois offered him a “truce.”
“If the Liberals fall short of a bare majority, they will be in a strong enough position to govern with a minority government, seeking ad hoc support from the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on specific issues,” Thompson said.
The elephant in the room. Once Carney forms a government, his principal test will be dealing with Trump. The aim for Carney, per Thompson, will be “to secure tariff-free (or at least low-tariff) access to the US market,” and the White House’s more dovish tone on trade over the last week suggests there might be an opening. The pair agreed to meet in person some time in the near future, according to a readout from the prime minister’s office, which comes after Carney insisted on Monday that he would only visit Washington to discuss trade agreements when there was a “serious discussion to be had.”
Ian Bremmer examines the future of the US-Canada relationship in his latest World in:60 here.
What’s next for Pierre Poilievre? The Conservative leader lost his own seat – a verdict that would consign you to reality television if you were in the United Kingdom. But he also led the Tories to their largest popular vote share since 1988, and expanded the right-wing coalition, so his political future may not be dead yet.
“He’s humbled,” Thompson said, “but likely to stay on to fight another day.”
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. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shake hands as they attend a joint press conference at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 13, 2025.
Modi has been around long enough to have navigated trade frictions during Trump’s first term, and he was one of the first world leaders to approach Trump earlier this year with a conciliatory approach to growing trade tensions. Now, according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the first phase of a new US-India trade deal might be “one of the first trade deals we would sign." Following a visit to Washington last week, Rajesh Agrawal, India’s lead trade negotiator, highlighted hopes for a “mutually beneficial, multi-sector bilateral trade agreement by fall of 2025, including through opportunities for early mutual wins.” Creating more market openings for US exports will come at a cost in a country long known for trade protectionism, but Modi has also made moves in recent years to open trade talks with the EU, the UK, and others.
This also follows news that, to avoid the Trump administration’s surging tariff rates on China, Apple has unveiled plans to move production of most of the 60 million iPhones it sells in the US each year from China to India by the end of 2026 – though the transition may take longer.