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.
{{ subpage.title }}
America’s short-term wins vs. long-term risks
The US economy looks unstoppable, with booming markets, surging productivity, and foreign investment pouring in. In this Quick Take, Ian Bremmer warns that short-term success may hide long-term dangers.
“I’m worried about immigration, education, and energy,” he says.
From deterring skilled immigrants to undermining world-class universities and lagging behind China on post-carbon energy, the US risks trading future competitiveness for temporary gains.
“The United States remains the most powerful country in the world,” Ian notes, “but that power comes from its economy and military, not its political system. And that’s a long-term problem.”
Charlie Kirk's assassination will make things worse in the US
In the latest episode of Quick Take, Ian Bremmer denounces the assassination of Charlie Kirk, cautioning that it will deepen America’s political dysfunction rather than unite the country.
Ian says this is a stress test for an already fragile political system and that political violence is not a solution.
“If you think freedom of speech and the provision of justice is for you and not those you disagree with, you need to change,” says Ian. “Americans must learn from people we disagree with, not demonize them.”
Warning about the trend of violence for attention, Ian also explains the US can still learn about representative democracy, civil society, respect, compassion, and leadership from its counterparts. And the “only people who benefit are the ones that want to destroy the American system, those that want to use the violence to create a one-party system.”
Does Trump's campus crackdown violate the First Amendment?
The Trump administration says it's defending free speech by confronting liberal bias on college campuses—but is it doing the opposite? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters explains how the administration’s focus on elite universities has led to sweeping actions that may ultimately restrict speech, especially for foreign-born students. “These are not students who smashed windows or assaulted security guards,” Peters says. “It’s pretty hard to see how the administration can make the case that these people are national security threats.”
And the impact is already being felt. Peters points to advice from university officials telling students to avoid posting on social media out of fear that political expression might jeopardize their legal status. In Trump’s America, he argues, the First Amendment is being selectively applied—and for some communities, the price of speaking out may be higher than ever.
Watch full episode: The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
In the United States, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro argues that institutions once devoted to open inquiry are increasingly undermining that mission. “Universities have forgotten their basic responsibilities,” he says, citing unequal rule enforcement and what he calls an “illiberalism” that predates Trump but has intensified with political polarization. Shapiro supports the Trump administration’s aggressive scrutiny of elite universities but warns that some immigration-related free speech crackdowns risk overreach: “I'd prefer the administration go after clear immigration violations, not rely on vague designations like ‘harmful to foreign policy.’”
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters warns that the Trump administration’s tactics may do more harm than good. “Rather than executing clean policies that defend free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” Peters points to a growing “chilling effect,” especially among international students, who are now being advised to self-censor for fear of legal consequences. Both guests agree that university culture has played a role in the current crisis, but they differ sharply on whether the government’s response is upholding or threatening the First Amendment.
In America’s culture wars, free speech is no longer just a right—it’s a weapon, and both sides are wielding it.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Free speech in Trump's America with NYT journalist Jeremy Peters and conservative scholar Ilya Shapiro
Listen: Free speech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, but what does it actually mean today? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute and New York Times free speech reporter Jeremy Peters. They discuss how free expression is being defined—and challenged—on university campuses and by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to national immigration policy. “The dynamic of ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ is prevalent,” Shapiro warns, pointing to inconsistent enforcement of campus speech rules and a broader “illiberalism” taking hold in higher education.
The conversation turns to the Trump administration’s aggressive response to Israel/Gaza protests, including efforts to penalize non-citizen students for their political speech. Peters cautions that this approach may violate the very rights the administration claims to defend. “Rather than execute a clean policy to support free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” The potential legal battles ahead could determine how far the government can go in defining speech as a national security issue, especially for non-citizens.
Both guests acknowledge that antisemitism on campus has become a flashpoint, but differ on how it’s being addressed. Shapiro argues that while not all anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitic, many protesters are crossing that line: “It’s possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, but it’s very rare in my experience.” Peters agrees the issue is complex and evolving, noting that universities “seem much more focused on preventing antisemitism than they were just a year ago.” Together, the guests raise urgent questions about the balance between expression, identity, and institutional responsibility in a sharply divided political landscape.
How did 'free speech' become a partisan weapon in America?
In the United States today, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Republicans have embraced free speech as a culture war rallying cry, using it to combat what they see as liberal censorship on college campuses and social media. Donald Trump even signed an executive order on his first day back in office aimed at curbing government interference in free speech. But Democrats argue that the same administration is now weaponizing federal power, targeting foreign students, threatening university funding, and punishing dissenting voices in ways that undermine the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Both parties claim to be protecting free speech, just not the same kind.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Preet Bharara on the legal troubles of former President Trump
The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy. Ensuring that everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law, including public officials, is a critical component of a healthy, thriving democratic government. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks with former US Attorney for the Southern District of NY and podcast host Preet Bharara to delve into the legal struggles of former President Trump. There is a strong possibility Trump will face a criminal trial as he runs for president in 2024, so the stakes have never been higher.
Bharara shares his analysis of the potential implications for executive privilege and its impact on democracy. In his wide-ranging conversation with Bremmer, they also explore the legal aspects of other news topics, including the ethical controversy surrounding Clarence Thomas and the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the Ukraine leak.
Note: this interview appeared in an episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on April 17, 2023, "Parsing Donald Trump's indictment
- Could Trump win the presidency even if convicted of a crime? ›
- Parsing Donald Trump's indictment ›
- Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes ›
- Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look ›
- Trump sexual abuse verdict won't hurt him with GOP - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's VP pick: The short list - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Will Trump's criminal conviction ruin his campaign - or American democracy? - GZERO Media ›
Could Trump win the presidency even if convicted of a crime?
What if a US presidential candidate were found guilty of a crime, yet still actively campaigned for the highest office in the land? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer and Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, explored that scenario for former President Donald Trump, who just got indicted in New York but is running again in 2024.
Bharara revealed that Trump could still run for and potentially even win the presidency, despite being "pending trial, charged, or convicted," and even end up in prison." However, he warned, with no legal precedent, there are implications for how we think about the rule of law and the standard of justice for everyone, as well as the US electoral system.
The former federal prosecutor, who was fired by Trump, says the former president is unlikely to face jail due to his age, lack of criminal record, and severity of the charges. There's also the issue of his Secret Service protection.
Bharara speculated that Trump might try to manipulate the threat of prosecution to garner sympathy and portray himself as a victim of political persecution, a tactic that may help him in the short-term, but could have far-reaching implications for the future of American democracy.