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.
popular
Last Thursday, Justin Trudeau’s last full day as prime minister, Donald Trump was emphatic in his desire to force Canada to join the United States during a press event in the Oval Office.
“Canada only works as a state,” he said, referring to the border as “an artificial line” and suggesting that Canschluss — a play on the term Anschluss, denoting Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938 — is just a matter of time.
“There will be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long. But they need us. We really don’t need them. And we have to do this. I’m sorry.”
On Friday, former central banker Mark Carney was sworn in as Canada’s prime minister. In his first news conference, he called Trump’s comments “crazy. That’s all you can say.”
For a few days, Trump didn't repeat his threats, which opened up the possibility that he merely enjoyed dunking onTrudeau, whom he seems to despise, and would now move on. But it was likely that the US president was just busy — carrying out airstrikes in Yemen, deporting migrants to El Salvador, and trying to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine.
On Tuesday night, in an interview with Fox News, Trump angrily denounced Canada again, said he doesn’t care if his comments cost the Conservatives the election, and said Canada is “meant to be our 51st state.”
Trump is so toxic in Canada that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievreseized on the comment as evidence that he, not Carney, is the champion the country needs.
Trump’s continued trash talk may show that his fixation is too deep to be deterred by the disinclination of Canadians to be annexed, which is setting him up for a showdown with the new prime minister.
People who know Carney think he may be better equipped to respond than Trudeau was.
Anthony Scaramucci, who became friends with Carney at Goldman Sachs many years ago, and who briefly worked for Trump in 2017, said on MSNBC that the president likely doesn’t want a fight with Carney, who he described as a “very, very tough guy.”
“I don’t think the administration really wants to fight with him,” said the Mooch. “He has energy on his side. He has electricity on his side.”
Trudeau looked weak
Trump and Carney have not yet had the traditional congratulatory call but, on the other hand, he is not yet calling Carney governor — which would be ironic, since he previously served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
It may be that Trump had a special desire to bully Trudeau, who was an unpopular lame duck when Trump was elected.
“Trump, as everybody knows, has an unerring instinct for the weakness of a counterparty, and he seeks to exploit that and control them for it,” says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group.
The White House will have noticed that Canadians now have their backs up, says Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, and are unified around the idea of “sticking it” to the Americans.
“It really has changed the way in which they will be able to negotiate with the United States in an upcoming [trade] renegotiation. It doesn’t matter who the leader of the Canadian government is. That person is going to have to represent the national mood, and the national mood is not conducive to cutting a deal with the United States.”
And Trump appreciates muscle. After blustery Ontario Premier Doug Ford threatened to impose a 25% tariff on electricity exports to the United States, Trump threatened him into backing down, and then praised him as “a very strong man.”
Thompson notes that Trump has been respectful to Ford, who just won a majority, and Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who enjoys overwhelming support among Mexicans.
“I think that whoever ends up on the other side of the Canadian election, if they get a majority, that would be the most powerful thing in Carney or Poilievre’s pocket, in terms of relations with the Trump administration.”
An election on tackling Trump
For Carney, everything depends on managing Trump, since he has the power to badly damage Canada’s economy with tariffs.
Carney is trying to show strength. After being sworn in, he flew to Europe to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “strengthen ties with reliable allies,” which seemingly no longer includes the United States.
After flying back to the Canadian Arctic, Carney announced that Canada would buy a CA$6 billion radar system from Australia, getting it before the Americans. He also has asked for a review of the planned CA$19 billion purchase of 88 F-35 fighter jets from the United States, “given the geopolitical environment,” although the Americans might be able to use technology-sharing agreements to block Canada from purchasing alternatives.
Last week, Portugal announced it would buy European jets rather than F-35s because of America’s new hostility toward traditional allies, so the Canadian announcement would seem like bad news for politically powerful American supplier Lockheed Martin. This would normally be the kind of thing to get a president’s attention.
Carney, who has met Trump at international conferences and been involved in business deals with Jared Kushner and Elon Musk, will highlight his economic and crisis-management experience in the upcoming Canadian election, which could start as soon as Sunday.
Polls show, in a dramatic reversal, that Canadians now favor Carney over his Conservative rival, who is promising to stand up to Trump but whom Carney has linked to the MAGA movement.
Carney is campaigning on taking a hard line. In London, he said he didn’t intend to negotiate with Trump until he stopped threatening to make Canada the 51st state.
“We’ve called out those comments,” he said. “They’re disrespectful, they’re not helpful, and they need to stop. They will have to stop before we sit down and have a conversation about our broader partnership with the United States.”
But Trump shows no sign of stopping, and if he doesn’t, it’s unclear what Carney — or Poilievre — can do. Both leaders talk about diversifying trade, but it would take years to build the transport infrastructure to make a major shift workable. In the short term, a showdown with a hostile neighbor looks inevitable.
Nigeria's President Bola Tinubu looks on after his swearing-in ceremony in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 29, 2023.
What prompted the move? Tinubu acted after an explosion rocked the Trans-Niger Pipeline this week, disrupting $14 million worth of daily crude oil production. The incident is still under investigation, but Tinubu accused Fubara of failing to act against gangs responsible for similar attacks in the past months that have been used to “bunker” or steal oil for sale on the black market.
However, critics argue that Tinubu’s real motive is to seize control of the oil-rich state, especially as Fubara belongs to the People’s Democratic Party, the main national opposition party to Tinubu’s All Progressives Congress. Fubara was already engaged in a power struggle with his predecessor, Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, and political opponents were threatening the governor withimpeachment.
The Nigerian Bar Association called Tinubu’s move “unconstitutional,” and the PDP is refusing to recognize the state of emergency. It maintains that Fubara is still governor and that Tinubu has no constitutional authority to remove him, and it has called on the country’s National Assembly to overturn Tinubu’s decision.
Last week, the US and Ukrainian governments agreed to pursue a 30-day ceasefire with no preconditions. Putin said yesterday on that call that he agrees – as long as the halt to fighting applies only to strikes on energy infrastructure, a major military target for both sides in recent months. That’s far short of the pause on fighting by land, sea, and air that Trump wanted, though Putin did say he was also ready to talk about a pause on attacks on Black Sea shipping. (Clearly, the Russian president is tired of daily briefings on the successes of Ukrainian air and sea drones.)
In the meantime, Russian forces will continue to push for more territorial gains on the ground, and Russia remains free to launch air attacks on civilian populations. We saw more of that last night. Since spring is here and power losses will no longer leave Ukrainians in the freezing cold, the promise to hold off on attacking energy infrastructure costs Russia little.
Putin offered Trump enough to encourage the US president to continue talks on a broader US-Russia rapprochement, one that includes benefits for both economies. Trump also has no reason to begin insisting that Ukrainians and Europeans participate in future negotiations, another prize for Putin.
Any halt or slowdown in the intensity of attacks will keep more civilians alive, at least for now. That's good news, and there's likely to be further movement toward a broader ceasefire at some point later in the year, maybe by the end of April.
But a durable peace agreement is another question. Putin made clear to Trump that he has some bright red lines that must be respected. For example, the Russian president insisted there could be no ongoing military and intelligence support for Ukraine from either the US or Europe. (The US readout of the call doesn’t mention that, but the Kremlin version does.) Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will turn quickly to the Europeans for help, and he’ll get it. Neither Ukraine nor Europe has any reason to accept an end to support for Kyiv. That will be a large problem for Trump in getting the big-splash peace deal he wants.
Still, Trump might soon argue that Ukraine and its Euro allies are the obstacle that prevents a temporary ceasefire from blossoming into permanent peace. If so, Putin will miss out on a peace deal he doesn’t want in exchange for a big new opening with the president of the United States.
That’s where Trump and Putin have left it. From his visit yesterday to Finland, Zelensky offered a positive preliminary appraisal of the energy infrastructure ceasefire, but with some big caveats. He said that he’ll have a “conversation with President Trump” where he’ll try to read the fine print on Trump’s exchange with Putin. That call happened earlier today. He called on Russia to free all Ukrainian prisoners of war as a gesture of good faith, and he vowed to keep Ukrainian troops inside Russia’s Kursk region “for as long as we need.”
But the energy ceasefire is essentially a scaled-back version of the proposal for a long-range airstrike halt and naval truce that Zelensky offered before the US-Ukrainian meeting last week in Saudi Arabia. If Ukraine’s president does fully endorse the idea, Europe will quickly get to yes too. Ukraine and the Europeans will then try to work toward winning a broader ceasefire that puts the Kremlin back on the spot. For now, that prospect looks doubtful.
Sadly, today’s news on Ukraine sounds a lot like what we’ve seen in Gaza where, as hard and time-consuming as it was to get that first ceasefire, a move to phase two will yield a lot fewer points the two sides can agree on. And as with Gaza, when that first ceasefire comes to an end, expect a new burst of deadly violence.
That’s why it’s hard to be optimistic that yesterday’s bargaining has moved us any closer to a true and lasting peace, the outcome all sides say they want.
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: The Putin-Trump call, some 90 minutes long, now over. And I would call this a win for both sides, for the Americans and the Russians, and not horrible for Ukraine and Europe, but kicking the can on what's going to be some big problems down the road and setting out where those challenges are going to be. Why is that?
Well, first of all, Putin said, "No," to the 30-day complete ceasefire, but did give a win to Trump, having accepted a 30-day ceasefire with no conditions with the Ukrainians. The Russians are saying they're prepared to do that, with no gives, as long as it's about targeting energy infrastructure, and in principle, still some discussions around maritime attacks around the Black Sea. Places that frankly the Russians have been irritated with what Ukraine has been able to do with air drones and with sea drones. And also allows the Russians to continue to press for territorial gains over the course of the coming weeks, depleting Ukraine's military capabilities. Plus, the weather's getting warmer, how much damage are you going to do to Ukraine, how miserable you can make them when you're no longer dealing with the freeze is not quite as relevant. So, not a particular loss for the Russians.
The fact that you're going to have less engagement militarily means fewer people will get killed. That's good for everybody involved, frankly. So that's where we are. Did you need 90-minutes to get that going? Not really, because the Russians also want to ensure that they have lots of conversations with the Americans about building business between the two sides, about people-to-people engagement, about finding a way to ensure that there is an ongoing bilateral channel where the Europeans aren't involved, where the Ukrainians aren't involved, that's essential for Putin and that he got. So yes, you have a meaningful, relatively contained ceasefire that maybe you can build on, but you also have a meaningful bilateral channel for broader engagement between the Americans and the Russians that the Ukrainians and the Europeans aren't going to be a part of, and that the Americans have no interest in having the Ukrainians Europeans being a part of.
Now, what Trump has heard from Putin in terms of red lines is that to actually have a comprehensive ceasefire ongoing, that the Russians are demanding, that there is no further intelligence or military support to Ukraine from the United States or Europe. That's obviously a non-starter for the Ukrainians because it means they won't be able to defend themselves as the Russians rebuild. It's a non-starter for the Europeans for similar reasons. Trump might be willing to negotiate that, and if he is, then he and Putin can blame Ukraine and the Europeans for not being able to take a 30-day limited ceasefire and expand it, which is exactly the position that Putin wants to be in. So, Putin giving a little bit in the near-term with the hopes of getting a lot more in the longer-term, getting Trump as it were, a little bit pregnant around a deal so that he's more engaged with the Russians in areas that's going to be more consequential and more costly for Europe and for the Ukrainians.
So that's where we are. We don't know yet whether the Ukrainians are going to accept these limited 30-day terms. I expect they will, because Trump wants them to. And when that happens, the Europeans will be onboard, too. The intention will be to try to use that by the Ukrainians, the Europeans, to try to get a longer, broader ceasefire. But there, the working level conversations between the US and Russia, between the US and Ukraine, are going to be far more difficult and they're probably not going to hold.
It feels a little bit like what we have in Gaza. Relatively easy to get the first iteration of a deal in place where no one's really giving anything up, but as you go into the second phase, you find that the fundamental interests don't actually overlap, and that's why we're fighting again on the ground in Gaza, with the Israelis killing hundreds of people there in the last 24-hours, and it's why I expect ultimately we are not heading towards peace, even though we do get a temporary ceasefire with Ukraine.
Trump has no cards. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
The Trump White House has received thousands of recommendations for its upcoming AI Action Plan, a roadmap that will define how the US government will approach artificial intelligence for the remainder of the administration.
The plan was first mandated by President Donald Trump in his January executive order that scrapped the AI rules of his predecessor, Joe Biden. While Silicon Valley tech giants have put forth their plans for industry-friendly regulation and deregulation, many civil society groups have taken the opportunity to warn of the dangers of AI. Ahead of the March 15 deadline set by the White House to answer a request for information, Google and OpenAI were some of the biggest names to propose measures they’d like to see in place at the federal level.
What Silicon Valley wants
OpenAI urged the federal government to allow AI companies to train their models’ copyrighted material without restriction, shield them from state-level regulations, and implement additional export controls against Chinese competitors.
“While America maintains a lead on AI today, DeepSeek shows that our lead is not wide and is narrowing. The AI Action Plan should ensure that American-led AI prevails over CCP-led AI, securing both American leadership on AI and a brighter future for all Americans,” OpenAI’s head of global policy, Christopher Lehane, wrote in a memo. Google meanwhile called for weakened copyright restrictions on training AI and “balanced” export controls that would protect national security without strangling American companies.
Xiaomeng Lu, the director of geo-technology at the Eurasia Group, said invoking Chinese AI models was a “competitive play” from OpenAI.
“OpenAI is threatened by DeepSeek and other open-source models that put pressure on the company to lower prices and innovate better,” she said. “Sam [Altman] likely wants the US government’s aid in wider access to data, export restrictions, and government procurement to boost its own market position.”
Laura Caroli, a senior fellow of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed. “Despite DeepSeek’s problems in safety and privacy, the real point is … OpenAI feels threatened by DeepSeek’s ability to build powerful open-source models at lower costs,” she said. “They use the national security narrative to advance their commercial goals.”
Civil liberties and national security concerns
Civil liberties groups painted a more dire picture of what could happen if Trump pursues an AI strategy that does not attempt to place guardrails on the development of this technology.
“Automating important decisions about people is reckless and dangerous,” said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The group submitted its own response to the government on March 13. McSherry told GZERO it criticized tech companies for ignoring “serious and well-documented risks of using AI tools for consequential decisions about housing, employment, immigration, access to benefits” and more.
There are also important national security measures that might be ignored by the Trump administration if it removes all regulations governing AI.
“I agree that maintaining US leadership in AI is a national security imperative,” said Cole McFaul, research analyst at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, which also submitted a response that focused on securing American leadership in AI while mitigating risks and better competing with China. “OpenAI’s RFI response includes a call to ban the use of PRC-trained models. I agree with a lot of what they proposed, but I worry that some of Washington’s most influential AI policy advocates are also those with the most to gain.”
But even with corporate influence in Washington, it’s a confusing time to try to navigate the AI landscape with so many nascent regulations in Europe, plus changing signals from the White House.
Mia Rendar, an attorney at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, noted that while the government is figuring out how to regulate this emerging technology, businesses are caught in the middle. “We’re at a similar inflection point that we were when GDPR was being put in place,” Rendar said, referring to the European privacy law. “If you’re a multinational company, AI laws are going to follow a similar model – you’ll need to set and maintain standards that meet the most stringent set of obligations.”
How influential is Silicon Valley?
With close allies like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and investor David Sacks in Trump’s orbit, the tech sector’s influence has been hard to ignore. Thus, the final AI Action Plan, expected in July, will show whether Silicon Valley really has pull with the Trump administration — and, specifically, which firms have what kind of sway.
While the administration has already signaled that it will be hands-off in regulating AI, it’s unclear what path Trump will take in helping American-made AI companies, sticking it to China, and signaling to the rest of the world that the United States is, in fact, the global leader on AI.
Palestinians are fleeing their homes in response to Israel army evacuation orders in a number of neighborhoods following heavy Israeli strikes in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on March 18, 2025.
The Israel-Hamas ceasefire ended overnight, as Israel resumed airstrikes on the Gaza Strip following Hamas’ refusal to release Israeli hostages. The Israeli Defense Forces targeted mid-level Hamas commanders, members of Hamas’ politburo, and its infrastructure in multiple locations across Gaza, including Rafah, Khan Younis, and Gaza City.Over 300 fatalities have been reported, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. The White House said that it was briefed in advance of the operation.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated on X that the strikes followed the “repeated refusal to release our hostages and its rejection of all the proposals it received from US president’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and from the mediators … Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength.”
Israel believes there are about 24 living hostages and 35 dead hostages still in Gaza. Hamas issued a statement saying Netanyahu’s decision to resume “aggression” against the territory exposes the hostages “to an unknown fate.” The IDF says it will continue the airstrikes “as long as necessary,” and expand the operation beyond an aerial campaign if ordered to do so by the Israeli government.
A group representing the families of the remaining hostages accused Netanyahu’s government today of choosing “to give up the hostages” by launching new strikes.