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 }}
AI adoption starts in the C-suite
As artificial intelligence becomes a foundational force in global business, many companies are rushing to adopt it—but not all are ready. According to Caitlin Dean, Director and Deputy Head of Corporates at Eurasia Group, success with AI isn’t just about access to the latest tools. It depends on leadership that actually understands what those tools can do.
In this Global Stage conversation from the 2025 STI Forum at the United Nations, Dean explains that while some large tech firms are integrating AI at the core of their business models, most companies are still in the early stages—using turnkey solutions to boost productivity without a clear long-term strategy. That gap, she warns, is a leadership problem.
Dean argues that organizations need more than just engineers. They need business leaders who are AI-literate—strategists who understand the technology deeply enough to apply it in meaningful, forward-looking ways. Without that, companies risk falling behind, not just in innovation, but in relevance.
This conversation is presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft, from the 2025 STI Forum at the United Nations in New York. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical conversations on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
See more at https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/un-sti-forum/ai-trends-in-2025-that-drive-progress-on-global-goals
Winning the AI race isn't about who invented it first
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape the global economy, the spotlight often lands on breakthrough inventions from labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, or DeepSeek. But according to Jeffrey Ding, assistant professor at George Washington University and author of "Technology and the Rise of Great Powers," that focus misses the bigger picture.
In this Global Stage conversation from the 2025 STI Forum at the United Nations, Ding argues that the true driver of national power isn’t who invents the next great AI tool—it’s who can scale it. He calls this process “diffusion”: the broad, effective spread of general-purpose technologies like AI across entire economies, industries, and institutions.
History backs him up. From electricity to the steam engine, Ding notes that the countries that ultimately benefitted most from past industrial revolutions were those that could integrate new technologies widely — not just invent them first. “That’s where diffusion meets inclusion,” he says.
This conversation is presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft, from the 2025 STI Forum at the United Nations in New York. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical conversations on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
See more at https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/un-sti-forum/ai-trends-in-2025-that-drive-progress-on-global-goals
Protecting your money in today's unpredictable market
“When things are going fine, nobody really tests the skills and talents of their financial advisor, but this is a moment where really good advice can be extraordinarily powerful,” says Margaret Franklin, CFA Institute's CEO and President.
In conversation with GZERO’s Tony Maciulis, Franklin describes the current financial climate as “maximum uncertainty,” rating it a 10 out of 10 on the risk scale. Recent unpredictable US trade policies have sent market volatility soaring, leaving many people and investors uncertain about their financial and portfolio management decisions. The usual conditions of predictability and reliability have been upended, making it more important than ever to seek guidance from a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Franklin recommends. She warns that the most “common destructive behavior” for a portfolio is abandoning a sensible program just when you need to stay the course.
Franklin also highlights growing concerns about “finfluencers” on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, who often lack proper qualifications and required disclosures. To address this, the CFA Institute is working to provide the public with reliable financial education and resources, helping people better understand the complexities and risks of today’s unpredictable environment.
This conversation is presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft from the IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical discussions on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
National flags of BRICS countries.
The BRICS remain a bad bet
Advocates of the BRICS have made this case before – and the return of Donald Trump as US president with the rollout of his trade war on US friends and foes alike has given them new momentum.
But, given their sharply differing political systems and economic models, the BRICS group will never share common views on democracy, free trade, and rule of law as the G7 Group of industrialized countries – the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada – has done. Nor are their interests aligned. China and India, for example, are more rivals than allies.
This reality will continue to limit the BRICS’ ability and willingness to take on the costs and risks that come with bolstering the international system of security and investment.
In short, Trump’s “America First” foreign and trade policies have created a vacuum in global leadership, but the BRICS remain too internally divided over basic questions to fill it.
Trump’s 4D checkers, China’s opportunity, climate hopes, and more: Your questions, answered
Welcome to another edition of my mailbag, where I attempt to make sense of our increasingly chaotic world, one reader question at a time. If you have a burning question for me before I go back to full-length columns, ask it here and I’ll answer as many as I can in next week’s newsletter.
Let’s dive in (with questions lightly edited for clarity).
Is the US currently a kleptocracy?
The United States is the most structurally kleptocratic of any advanced industrial democracy, with public policy increasingly captured by monied special interests and the rules of the marketplace determined by the highest bidder. The wealthiest Americans not only can fund political campaigns but also buy favorable regulatory and legal treatment and lobby for policies that perpetuate their economic interests. This system is two-tiered alright, but it doesn’t see red and blue – only green.
President Donald Trump is a beneficiary and an accelerant of this disease, but it long predates him. Which is why Trump faced so little pushback from the business world both times he was elected. After all, a system where the connected can buy their preferred policy outcomes is a system much of the private sector is both used to and comfortable with.
Has Trump done to brand USA what Musk did to Tesla?
He’s working on it. The long-term damage to America’s reputational capital has been incalculable (though it hasn’t been as great as the >50% in value Tesla has lost since its mid-December peak). Sometimes you have a personal relationship and someone does something that can’t be unseen. That’s what has happened particularly with Canadians and Europeans of late. I think that damage is permanent. And we are not even 100 days in …
How do other nations view America in light of Trump’s aggressive tariffs, threats, and general disdain for allies?
They all see the United States as the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty. In the near term, most countries – especially smaller, poorer ones – will look to cut trade deals with Trump relatively quickly because the alternative, direct confrontation with the world’s sole superpower, is too costly to bear. We’re seeing that already with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and many other delegations coming to Washington to try to do everything they can to secure at least functional relations with the US.
At the same time, every country recognizes the longer-term need to hedge away and “de-risk” from the United States as much and as fast as possible to reduce their exposure to Trump-driven disruption. Even those that manage to come away with deals know the president could change his mind. After spending the last decade focusing on the dangers of having too much exposure to Beijing’s opaque, arbitrary, and personalistic decision-making, policymakers, businesses, and investors all over the world now suddenly see de-risking from the US as the more urgent priority. That’s an extraordinary shift when you stop to think about it.
Granted, de-risking from the US is a tall order given America’s asymmetric power advantages and the global embeddedness of so many of the things it provides – defense, advanced technologies, finance – that are hard to substitute (read: to break free from). But many US allies see no choice but to start seriously looking for alternatives. We’re already seeing the European Union and Latin America speed up their conversations to fast-track approval of the EU-Mercosur trade deal. Trump-aligned India is likewise moving to improve its trade relations with the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others. Canada is trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans. Even Vietnam, which has long harbored deep mistrust of China, signed 45 new economic cooperation agreements with Beijing days after Trump trade czar Peter Navarro rebuffed its offer to lower its tariffs on US goods to zero.
Can China capitalize on Trump’s global trade war to peel off US allies?
Xi Jinping just wrapped up a Southeast Asian charm offensive to try to do exactly that. For the first time since the Vietnam War, most Vietnamese are now more well-disposed toward China than the US. That’s not true everywhere (e.g., the Philippines is still about 80% pro-American), but the trend line is clear. China sees the moment as a historic opportunity to move economically closer to many countries and portray itself as a champion of globalization and a force for stability.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean America’s loss will be China’s gain everywhere. The Europeans don’t suddenly trust the Chinese more just because they now trust the Americans less. They still have big issues with Chinese dumping, overcapacity exports (especially in the auto industry), data surveillance, and other beggar-thy-neighbor practices that have not gone away. Europe’s de-risking will be less about tilting to China and more about strengthening its own capabilities and hedging with pretty much everybody else. Plus, as I mentioned above, while Trump has worked hard to alienate US allies, America remains the only game in town for most Western countries in many strategic sectors and critical networks. Going cold turkey is unthinkable.
If everyone thinks tariffs are a bad idea even for the American economy, why is Trump persisting? Do you see a way the US can win on this?
As much as I’d like to believe so, I just can't see any way the US comes out ahead on this. Myself and others have written extensively about why the tariffs (and the massive ongoing uncertainty surrounding US policy) are an economic lose-lose, not only for America’s trade partners but for American consumers and businesses, and not just in the short term but also in the long run. Rather than boost domestic manufacturing, they will accelerate the country’s deindustrialization. And if the administration had really intended to use the tariffs as a cudgel to forge a united front against China (as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others have claimed), it wouldn’t have slapped punishing duties on friendly countries already inclined to join this alliance before asking for their help. I’m afraid there’s no “4D chess” strategy or master plan.
It’d be one thing if the Trump team were only picking this one fight. But it’s going to be much harder to convince the world not to hedge away from the United States when at the same time as they’re hitting everyone with tariffs, they’re also picking all sorts of fights on other fronts. They are directly and indirectly threatening other countries’ sovereignty and territoriality, whether it’s Greenland and Denmark, Panama, Canada, or Ukraine. They are exporting algorithms and disinformation that undermine democracies around the world. They are destroying the transatlantic alliance. They are aligning with Russia over longstanding allies at the United Nations and the G7. They are driving away foreign tourists and international students. And they’re picking fights domestically, trying to weaken checks and balances, undermine the rule of law, and erode state capacity in ways that will make the US a worse place to live, invest, and do business.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but this policy set looks hands down like the most extraordinary geopolitical own goal I’ve ever witnessed.
Is it possible that Trump is purposely upsetting the economy in an effort to lower interest rates, reduce the US government’s debt servicing costs, and shrink the federal deficit?
Nope. That’s another one of those 4D chess stories flying around, and it’s nonsense. It’s true that a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced US recession can make existing US government debt (and mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, etc.) cheaper to refinance by bringing down long-term interest rates. But if long rates decline because the real economy has deteriorated to the point where the Fed has to cut short-term rates to boost aggregate demand, the money saved on debt interest payments probably will be offset by the lower tax revenue collected and the higher unemployment benefits paid out during the recession. The overall deficit will likely be higher than if said recession hadn’t been engineered in the first place – destroying trillions in economic value and hurting millions of real Americans in the process.
And all this assumes that long rates will in fact go down when the US enters a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced recession, which financial markets are currently telling us is not guaranteed in light of growing inflation and default risks. Thus far, Trump’s stagflationary policy mix and erratic policymaking style have made the world’s safe-haven assets relatively less attractive, prompted investors to sell US bonds, and caused long rates to rise rather than fall.
Will Trump succeed in brokering a ceasefire in Ukraine like he promised on the campaign trail?
Only if he’s willing to effectively use both carrots and sticks on Russia and Ukraine alike. So far he hasn’t, deploying mostly sticks (suspending military aid and intelligence sharing) to force the Ukrainians to come to terms and principally only carrots (the promise of sanctions nonenforcement and relief, and even full normalization of relations) to get the Russians to back off their maximalist demands.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week the administration is giving the talks “a matter of days” to make progress or else they’ll walk away from the peace effort altogether. The problem is that Vladimir Putin continues to be uninterested in a durable ceasefire, at least not unless the so-called “root causes” of the conflict are addressed through a permanent settlement. He started this war to change the facts on the ground and is convinced he still has what it takes to win it. What’s more, he’s betting that if he can keep slow rolling the peace talks and convince Trump that it was Kyiv’s intransigence that tanked them, Russia could plausibly get a US rapprochement while it continues to wage war against a Ukraine deprived of US assistance. I’m not a betting man, but at this point, it’s a reasonable wager for Putin to make.
What do you expect from incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz?
Less capacity to spend and lead than many people hope, despite having managed to pass a historic fiscal package through the Bundestag lifting the country’s “debt brake” for defense spending and creating a 500 billion euro special fund for infrastructure investments. The incoming coalition is serious but relatively unpopular and divided, facing a stronger-than-ever far-right Alternative for Germany leading the opposition in the new parliament.
This political weakness, combined with the sheer scale of the challenges it faces, will water down the government’s ambitions. Germany is undergoing a severe, decade-long economic crisis. Merz will be under considerable pressure to jumpstart growth quickly amid global trade wars and under tight budget conditions. Just a few weeks ago, he was well-disposed to take on a European leadership role. Now that talk is no longer cheap, his constraints and risk tolerance will change. And if the Germans won’t step up, who in Europe can?
Is climate action possible in a disintegrating world? Have the odds of avoiding catastrophic climate change worsened in the past three months?
I’m more optimistic here. We’ve already broken the back of the most catastrophic climate change scenarios. Economic self-interest – not ideology or idealism – is driving the clean energy revolution as technological innovation and steep learning curves have dramatically reduced the price tag of clean power technologies, making them the cheapest and most profitable option in a lot of markets regardless of politics. Deep-red Texas and Florida lead the US in solar and wind power deployment. China is set to hit its emissions peak several years ahead of schedule. Europe sees renewables as an energy security imperative. Emerging markets from India to Indonesia and Pakistan are eager to develop using cheaper and cleaner domestic energy sources than high-volatility, dirty imported fuels.
I don’t want to be glib. The planet is still heating up faster than we’d like, and the present state of geopolitics – from Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” to the G-Zero vacuum of global climate leadership – will slow the pace of decarbonization. With every fraction of a degree of warming causing bigger and more frequent disasters, lower growth, and more deaths, that’s not good news. But for every environmental regulation repealed, clean energy policy revoked, fossil fuel project approved, and international commitment abandoned, there’s another, much more structural force pulling even harder in the opposite direction. As my colleagues and I put it in Eurasia Group’s 2025 Top Risks report, the global energy transition “has reached escape velocity.”
Would you ride Moose like a jockey if given the opportunity?
I’d train him with a well-disposed toddler first. That would be must-see television. Any volunteers?
Global economic outlook: Is a recession already here?
“We’re heading toward a substantial U.S. recession,” said Robert Kahn, Eurasia Group’s Managing Director, Global Macro. “We may even be in one now.”
That notion challenges the official economic outlook released this week by the International Monetary Fund, which was more cautious in its assessment. However, it more closely mirrors what experts are saying in the halls at the IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings currently underway in Washington, D.C.
In a conversation with GZERO’s Tony Maciulis, Kahn explained the state of the global economy before President Donald Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” and where things stand now. Unlike past crises triggered by external shocks, this one, he argues, is driven by the U.S. administration’s abrupt and sweeping trade policy changes, alongside tension between the White House and the Federal Reserve. These factors make the downturn both unpredictable and unprecedented.
“We don’t have a model for this,” Kahn said. “There’s no course I took in school that’s directly relevant to what we’re living with.”
This conversation is presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft from the IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C. The Global Stage series convenes global leaders for critical discussions on the geopolitical and technological trends shaping our world.
US-China trade from 1985-2024
Graphic Truth: The US trade deficit with China, from zero to now
Hard as it is to imagine amid the harrowing US-China trade war these days, there was a time when the two countries hardly did any business with each other.
That time was about 40 years ago, in the mid-1980s.
In those days, China had just barely begun the sweeping economic reforms that would turn a country wrecked by Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution into a new “workshop of the world.” By churning out exports of everything from sneakers and sofas to smartphones and solar panels, China carved out a crucial role in the global economy.
A major moment in China’s trade growth came in the early 2000s when, over objections from US labor unions and industry groups worried about the impact of cheaper Chinese labor on American jobs, the US opened the way for China to join the World Trade Organization.
After that, China became one of the top three US trade partners, a place it has held ever since — occasionally beating out Canada and Mexico for the top spot. The US trade deficit with China — nearly $300 billion last year — is the largest in the world.
Since President Donald Trump’s first term, the US has hit China with tariffs in an effort to rebalance the trade relationship and “decouple” sensitive American industries from a country that most people in Washington now view as a rival.
These efforts have intensified in the early months of Trump’s second term, and the two countries have now imposed triple digit tariffs on each other.
Here’s a look back at how US-China commercial ties grew from nearly nothing into the largest, and now most contentious, trade relationship in the world.
Can the US win by undoing globalization?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week, and what an extraordinary geopolitical environment we all find ourselves in right now.
The big macro lens is that the United States, my country, has become the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty on the global stage. The most powerful country in the world, the biggest economy in the world, the home of the global reserve currency. And yet, at the same time, by far the most dysfunctional and kleptocratic and unfree political system of the advanced industrial democracies, so the G7 plus, compared to Japan or Germany or France or the UK or Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea. That's what we're looking at right now. And of course, that's a really challenging thing for pretty much everybody to navigate.
It is playing out the most dramatically in global trade with massive tariffs coming from the United States. And it's unclear who is going to get hit the worst, but it is clear that everyone is going to take a hit. This isn't a good environment for anybody. You want to talk about winners? There's not really any winners when you're undoing globalization. It's painful for pretty much everyone inside the United States. It's painful for multinational corporations, it's painful for consumers, it's painful for friends and adversaries of the United States all over the world. Whether it's China, it's Europe, Japan, Global South, you name it, everyone is taking a hit, everyone's economy will do worse, global growth will do worse. We will all feel it in the pocketbook, in the portfolio. Uncertainty, a massive amount of uncertainty being driven and driven continuously by the most powerful country in the world is hard for everybody to navigate and creates more cost.
Now, the markets are clearly glad that there has been rollback from the United States, from Trump, in particular the over 10% tariffs on most countries coming off for some 90 days, the electronics and iPhone exception, at least for now, on China, et cetera. But it's certainly unclear how long those exemptions are going to last and what happens after that. And even where we are right now, with 10% additional tariffs on everybody and significant essentially trade embargo on most goods between the United States and China, the two most powerful countries in the world, that already brings us squarely back to the 1930s in terms of the global tariff environment, and also at a time that things are moving much faster, that efficiencies are much greater, that global interconnectedness and supply chains so much more important.
So that's a real problem. That is not going to get managed anytime soon because no one is going to suddenly believe, oh, okay, I now have a deal with the United States, and that isn't going to be upset in a week or in a month or in a year. So the amount of hedging that you have to do economically is going to be structural and great. Now, countries around the world do want to cut deals with the United States because it's very costly not to do so, and I think that Secretary Treasury Bessent, and as well as President Trump, absolutely right about that. And we see that in particular you've got the Japanese delegation coming this week, plenty of things they want to do to ensure that the US and Japan have a more functional trading relationship going forward. Countries around the world are going to be looking to make deals relatively quickly, especially smaller, poorer countries.
But also, an even more structural change is that everyone is going to try to hedge. For decades now, we've been talking and increasingly about the dangers of having too much exposure to China. And increasingly, in the last five plus years, this idea of de-risking your investments, your exposures, away from China. That's now shifting to conversations about de-risking the United States, which is extremely hard to do, and nonetheless, increasingly urgent. And so, we see this happening all over the world right now. The EU and Latin America are looking to speed up and make much more likely their trade deal, EU-Mercosur, than it would've been before the United States slapped all of these tariffs because it creates alternatives for increased trade.
We see India now moving to fast track their trade relations and improve them with the United Kingdom, with Australia, with the EU, with many other countries as well. We see China, Xi Jinping, making a snap trip to Southeast Asia and wanting to ensure that they can expand their trade and ease the regulatory and the constraints around that. Xi Jinping first in Vietnam and signing 45 new agreements for economic cooperation with them. And they'll do a lot more. They'll try to do that with the Europeans, with the Global South. More broadly, Canada, trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
How is the United States winning here? And the answer is I don't see it, and I don't see it not only because I think it's going to be very hard to convince countries that they need to stop hedging away from the US and just work on getting a better deal with the United States, but also because the US isn't only picking this fight. The US is picking all sorts of fights simultaneously. The US is at the same time hitting other countries on trade, it's also trying to make itself less attractive for tourists to come to the United States, make them worry more that they are going to be treated as they might in an emerging market when they come over. Their smartphones are going to be combed through and they might get detained, they might even get arrested. A lot of people are worried about that. You go on Reddit threads, all of my friends outside the United States coming to the US, they're increasingly concerned about that.
You've got fights with the United States on issues of democracy and the export of algorithms and disinformation that undermines democracies around the world. You see the US picking fights with other countries on territoriality, whether it's with Greenland and Denmark or it's Panama or it's Canada. You see the Americans looking to work with the Russians over the heads of their closest allies in the G7. So they're not just picking one fight, they're picking lots of simultaneous fights, and they're also picking fights domestically at home. The United States trying to undo checks and balances on the executive, on the president that undermines rule of law and makes the US a less attractive place long-term to do business, to live, to educate, you name it.
So for all of those reasons, this to me, and I hope I'm wrong, looks like the most extraordinary act of geopolitical self-harm that I've witnessed. It's Brexit, but on a global scale. And my friends, all I can tell you is buckle up and we'll be watching this going forward. That's it, and I'll talk to you all real soon.