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 }}
Hacked displayed on a mobile with binary code with in the background Anonymous mask. On 9 August 2023 in Brussels, Belgium.
Old MacDonald had a Russian bot farm
On July 9, the US Department of Justice announced it disrupted a Russian bot farm that was actively using generative AI to spread disinformation worldwide. The department seized two domain names and probed 1,000 social media accounts on X (formerly known as Twitter) in collaboration with the FBI as well as Canadian and Dutch authorities. X voluntarily suspended the accounts, the government said.
The Kremlin-approved effort, which has been active since at least 2022, was spearheaded by an unnamed editor at RT, the Russia state-run media outlet, who created fake social media personas and posted pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine sentiments on X. It’s unclear which AI tools were used to generate the social media posts.
“Today’s actions represent a first in disrupting a Russian-sponsored Generative AI-enhanced social media bot farm,” FBI Director Christopher Wray wrote in a statement. Wray said that Russia intended to use this bot farm to undermine allies of Ukraine and “influence geopolitical narratives favorable to the Russian government.”
Russia has long tried to sow chaos online in the United States, but the Justice Department’s latest action signals that it’s ready to intercept inorganic social media activity — especially when it’s supercharged with AI.
A general view of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) building, in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, October 20, 2021
Antitrust is coming for AI
The US government's two antitrust regulators struck a deal to divvy up major investigations into anti-competitive behavior in the AI industry. The Justice Department will look into Nvidia’s dominance over the chip market, while the Federal Trade Commission will investigate OpenAI and its lead investor, Microsoft.
In December, the FTC opened a preliminary inquiry into Microsoft's $13 billion stake in OpenAI, which makes ChatGPT. It’s an non-traditional deal, in which Microsoft receives half of OpenAI’s revenue until the investment is repaid, rather than traditional equity. But Microsoft also flexed its muscles after the sudden ouster of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman last year, offering to hire him and any defecting OpenAI employees, effectively pressuring the company to rehire him — which it did soon after. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority also began probing the relationship between the two firms in December.
Meanwhile, Nvidia has become the undisputed leader of the AI chip industry with their powerful graphics processors powering the training and operation of generative AI models. The company recently disclosed in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that its pole position and market dominance has attracted regulatory scrutiny from the United Kingdom, though it didn’t specify the nature of the inquiry.
Noah Daponte-Smith, a United States analyst for Eurasia Group, sees this announcement “largely as a messaging exercise intended to show that DOJ [and] FTC will be just as dogged on antitrust issues in the AI space as in the rest of the Big Tech arena.” He sees the decision as more of a continuation of Biden’s aggressive antitrust regime than a policy position on the regulation of AI.
“My sense is that AI regulation will have to occur more through Congress and through executive actions not focused on competition,” he added.
Singer Taylor Swift performs at her concert for the international "The Eras Tour" in Tokyo, Japan February 7, 2024.
Swifties rejoice: DOJ sues Ticketmaster
The Department of Justice announced Thursday it is suing Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, alleging the company has built an anti-competitive monopoly in live events. Over 70% of all major concert venue tickets in the US are handled via Ticketmaster, and the DOJ says their market dominance has crushed competition in the sector, stagnating innovation and subjecting consumers to unfairly high prices.
The lawsuit has been in the works for nearly two years, but it received a big jolt last year after Taylor Swift fans found themselves unable to buy tickets for the singer’s “Eras” tour because of a botched rollout on Ticketmaster. Suddenly, senators were holding hearings about Live Nation with one eye on the approval of these newly minted antimonopolists.
But Live Nation says it has little to do with the high prices fans are experiencing, alleging that artists and venues themselves are driving up the costs for fans. They claim that breaking up the company would not lower ticket prices for fans, but the DOJ disagrees and says the case isn’t solely about price. With Live Nation’s dominant market share, smaller companies can’t survive and roll out products that could make tickets cheaper and the industry more competitive.
The DOJ says it wants a full jury trial, and the attorneys general of 30 states have all signed on to the federal case. No verdict is expected anytime soon, but don’t worry Swifties — GZERO is on the beat.
Timing on Trump's federal trial has huge implications
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares his perspective on US politics.
What are the implications of the Trump indictment?
Former President Trump has now been indicted for a second time in the last several months, this time by federal prosecutors who are investigating a case of mishandled documents, a very serious crime in federal law. There are several questions that are going to make a difference here, though.
The first is the timing. How quickly can Trump have a trial? Does it happen quickly in the next six months or so, in which case it will land right in the middle of the Republican nominating process? Or is he able to delay the process until after well into next year, potentially after the 2024 presidential election? The implications of those two scenarios are very different for the former president. If it's a quick trial, this is going to be the dominant issue and he may actually be potentially found guilty and sent to jail before the election. If it's a later trial, this is probably just more background noise, and it doesn't affect him as directly.
The second question is, can the DOJ find a jury that is unbiased? This is the most famous man in the world, everyone knows who he is, everyone has an opinion about him, are they going to be able to find a jury that can fairly prosecute this case? If they can't, Trump may be able to claim a mistrial and we may have a long, drawn-out process here of appeals.
The third question is, what does this mean for Trump in the presidential primary? It probably makes him stronger. You have, even Republicans like Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin coming out and attacking the DOJ for these charges, and what we saw after Trump was indicted in New York was that his approval ratings within the Republican Party and his polling lead over his closest rival, Ron DeSantis, went up.
The fourth question is, what does this mean for law enforcement long-term? On the one hand, the special counsel bringing these charges proves that no man is above the law and holds Trump accountable for what seemed like very serious and plausible violations of federal law. On the other hand, you have one of America's two major political parties making broadside attacks against the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement, which is going to erode trust in those institutions over a long-time frame, no matter how just and righteous the charges against President Trump might end up being. Thanks for watching.
This has been US politics in (a little over) 60 Seconds.
Trump indicted on federal charges
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Another Quick Take. Too much news this week to keep me down. My goodness.
Seven indictments going to be coming down on Tuesday, federal indictments, against former President Trump. Unprecedented development in US history. We see so many of those in American democracy these days. No American president has ever been federally indicted before. I'd like to say no one will ever be federal indicted again, but of course that is looking increasingly unlikely given the state and trajectory of the US political system.
Now, of course, the right thing to do here would be to wait until the indictments come down to opine on them, wait until evidence is presented, and the jury rules to determine to what extent this is a case that is appropriate on its merits. It's kind of like OJ, right? I mean, everyone was on tenterhooks until the verdict came down, and then you had the real response. No, no, no, the real response right now has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case and has to do with your political alignment. Are you on Team Trump or are you on Team I Can't Stand Trump? Depending on that, that determines your response to the case.
We've seen that already in the US political system. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy comes out immediately and very strongly with Trump sort of language, "This is a witch hunt." "This is a politicization of the Department of Justice, a sitting president going after a former president." "Can't take this seriously." I mean, if you're listening to McCarthy or if you're listening to most of the competing candidates for the Republican presidency, not all, but certainly most against Trump, your view would be that this case is illegitimate. It's being brought against Trump by Biden to destroy him, to destroy his candidacy. It is politically motivated. That you should not have any belief or support for the independent DOJ and cases that are being brought forward. That rule of law in the United States is being subverted by this very case. That is the perspective.
On the other side is the view that you can't have rule of law if one man, any man, particularly the former president or the sitting President of the United States stands above it and that rule of law doesn't apply. The breadth of the cases against former President Trump is, of course, staggering both with indictments already being brought down. Of course, these are the first federal indictments. They're not the first indictments. Other cases are proceeding apace in Georgia as well as federal case on insurrection. There was recently a civil case that Trump lost and $5 million he has to pay for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll.
I mean, this is far too much legal sturm und drang for any individual in the American political system. If these are legitimate crimes, in a system that has rule of law, you need to be prosecuting them. Then of course, there are people in the United States for whom Trump is guilty irrespective of what the facts bring, so they're prepared to try him and find him guilty in the court of the media and public opinion, irrespective of what the grand jury says, irrespective of what the evidence is found to be in the case.
I mean that by itself, the reality of this case shows a level of the US political system being broken. That's the biggest takeaway. The biggest takeaway, of course, is that impeachment no longer functions as a check on the executive. It has become inextricably politicized. It can only be used in a partisan way, and therefore it no longer holds legitimacy. That started off in the Clinton days, and it is only expanded as we've seen with former President Trump.
That is now becoming increasingly true with the Attorney General and with the special prosecutor. Irrespective of what you think about the case, the fact that it is not being tried on its merits in the court of public opinion, the fact that the media and the political leaders on the Democratic and Republican party and the American people have made up their minds about the nature of this case, that the majority of them, before any evidence is heard, shows that the US democracy is not what it once was. That's the biggest takeaway. That's the most disturbing takeaway.
Now, to look at what's going to happen going forward. This clearly isn't as serious as the insurrection case that might be brought, but it's far more serious than the case involving Stormy Daniels and the illegal use of funds to pay her off. Also, less politicized in the sense that Alvin Bragg in New York City is certainly seen to be making more of a career name for himself in going after Trump. That's not the case with the special counsel there. Indeed, the politics run in the other direction. Unless the Special counsel and the Attorney General truly believed they had a rock solid case against Trump, it is hard to imagine that they would be proceeding with it.
Having said that, Trump himself runs a grievance-based campaign. He's incredibly effective at it. He's a more effective campaigner than any political leader I've ever seen. Irrespective of how he governs, he loves campaigning. He now has a much more solid team around him for the campaign because they think he's going to win than they did in 2016 where he had the D team that all thought he was going to lose. His ability to fundraise off this. Of course, those letters were all basically out as soon as he got the phone call that the indictments were coming down.
I hate to say this, but I actually believe that these indictments make it more likely that Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. I particularly believe that because it's very unlikely that this case is going to get resolved by a grand jury before the nomination process for the GOP is complete. In fact, it's probably unlikely to get resolved before the actual election. The weird thing, of course, is if it got resolved and he was found guilty and was even in jail, again very unlikely, but as a felon, he'd still probably be able to run from jail as president, but he wouldn't be able to vote in Florida, which is all just shows how incredibly farcical the US political system has become.
The more important issue here, I guess from a positive perspective, is that there are a significant minority of Republican voters that believe that Trump should not be president if he's found guilty of a serious crime, if he's convicted of a serious crime. My point is that that is very unlikely to happen before the election process, and certainly before the nomination process. Yes, Asa Hutchinson, yes, Chris Christie are going after Trump directly, but most of the candidates, and certainly the most popular candidates are not going to, and they're going to support Trump if he gets that nomination. That's an advantage to him in the same way that McCarthy, Speaker of the House, is absolutely going to continue to do that.
What do I think? What think is we're going to cover this as a country every day. It's going to dominate headlines. It's going to help Trump, it's going to weaken US democracy. For allies around the world, this is a hit to confidence in the United States as a trusted long-term ally as a political system that they want to align with. For adversaries of the United States, it is useful as a proof point that the American political system is no better than their own. That there is a moral relativism and a hypocrisy when we talk about politics and values. That there is no right or wrong on the global stage, and to the extent that there is, that the Americans and American political elites are on the wrong side of that.
It's unfortunate. It's not what we want to see. Every American who grew up believing in liberty and democracy and rule of law has seen faith in those values shaken over the past couple of decades and continued with the news of the last 24 hours. I'm sorry to have to report on that. I still believe in the resilience, ultimately, of the US political system. But it is that very resilience that allows so many political leaders to say, "Not today. I don't have to deal with this because everything is just fine. The longer everything is seen to be just fine, the greater the erosion becomes." At some point you get a crisis. We are heading in that direction. I'm not looking forward to seeing it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Parsing Donald Trump's indictment
Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, stopped by GZERO World to discuss three big legal stories in the news: the charges facing former US President Donald Trump, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's gifts from a billionaire Republican donor, and the recent classified documents leak.
According to Bharara, the charges leveled against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, could establish a precedent for justice and the rule of law, with significant consequences for American democracy in the future. Bharara ranked the severity of the three other potential charges that could be brought against former President Trump, with the conduct relating to the January 6th riot "being the most severe."
Though this is not the first US president to be charged with a crime, Trump's plans to run for president in 2024 while fighting criminal charges could have wide-ranging implications for the future of democracy.
"There are people who are not allies of Trump, who I think are responsibly raising the question, "What is the level of seriousness of a crime on the part of a former president that justifies bringing it?" Bharara tells Ian Bremmer, "And they're really great arguments and I struggle with this."
- Trump's indictment is problematic ›
- Trump indicted ›
- 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 ›
- US intel leak shows rising risk of NATO-Russia conflict ›
- Why you should care about the legal case against the Trump Organization - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's uncertain future amid new indictments - GZERO Media ›
- Trump indicted (again) - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Has a US president ever been arrested before Trump? - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: Trumped up charges? The law & politics of investigating a president's crimes
Listen: Where democracy is built upon the principles of rule of law, legal challenges faced by public officials are a sober matter. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with former US Attorney for the Southern District of NY and podcast host, Preet Bharara. Together, they explore the current state of the US legal system, the hurdles for keeping public officials to account, and the potential implications for democracy when a former president is criminally charged by federal courts. Bharara draws from his extensive experience as a prosecutor to offer insightful perspectives on pressing legal concerns, including the role of executive privilege in government accountability. The duo also takes a deep dive into news headlines, addressing the ethical dilemma surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the Ukraine leak.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Liz Truss arrives for the announcement of Britain's next Prime Minister at The Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London.
What We're Watching: Liz beats Rishi, Chile rejects charter change, Trump wins DOJ probe delay
Meet the UK's new PM
As expected, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss won the Conservative Party leadership race on Monday and will become the next British PM, replacing the disgraced Boris Johnson. Truss — a political chameleon who's popular with the Tory base — beat former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, a moderate technocrat, by a comfortable margin of 57% of party member votes. She now faces tough challenges at home and abroad. First, a looming recession compounded by a cost-of-living crisis and an energy crunch. Truss, who fancies herself as a modern Margaret Thatcher, plans to announce big tax cuts and perhaps a temporary freeze on energy bills for the most vulnerable Brits — which her economic guru has warned would be fiscally irresponsible. Second, a likely collision course with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol. Brace for rocky times ahead as Truss tries to convince Brussels to renegotiate the post-Brexit trade deal, which scrapped a hard border between Northern Ireland, part of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state. (No surprise then that Brussels is hardly looking forward to her moving into No. 10 Downing St.) On Tuesday, Truss will travel to Scotland to meet with Queen Elizabeth II, who as per tradition will ask her to form a government at the monarch's Balmoral summer residence.
Chileans say "no" to new constitution
On Sunday, Chileans gave a resounding thumbs down to the new constitution planned to replace the current Pinochet-era charter. Almost 62% of those who voted in a referendum rejected the proposed text, which would have expanded the role of the state in the economy, recognized Indigenous rights, enforced gender parity in public institutions, and required the government to protect the environment. Although more than three-quarters of Chileans voted in October 2020 to get a new constitution, this draft failed to get majority support because many viewed it as too complicated, long (388 articles), and above all progressive. The "no" victory is a major blow to leftist President Gabriel Boric, a big supporter of the referendum whose approval rating has plunged since he was elected five months ago. Boric now says he wants to call another constituent election; to do that, though, he'll need to negotiate in Congress with the center-right opposition, which will leverage the result to influence the process. Still, Chileans may have turned down this charter, but the popular appetite for a new one hasn’t died down — and politicians dragging their feet could lead to social unrest like the 2019 mass protests that triggered the first referendum.