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 }}
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.
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.
Who benefits from Trump's tariff wall?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week and what a week it is going to be. An extraordinary downturn in US and global markets. The reaction to 'Liberation Day' where American citizens will be liberated from the highest performing economy in the world. Now, globalization, of course, is what is being undone here by the United States. The US benefited massively from globalization, from cheaper goods and services and capital and people moving more easily across borders all over the world. But the fact that the United States economy as a whole benefited did not mean that the average American benefited. They did not. And indeed, while the top 10% did much, much better in the US over the last 40 years, the top 1% even better, the top 0.001%, not only extraordinarily well, world leading well, but also had the money to capture the US political system and ensure that the policies were exactly what they wanted.
And that has led to a massive backlash in the United States where most voters no longer support free trade. Most voters no longer support collective security. Most voters no longer support US leadership on the global stage. They voted in Trump, and Trump is giving them what they voted for, which is a "tariff wall" around the United States that at least for the first few days, he is not backing down. And the implications of that are going to be significant destruction of wealth in the United States and in markets all over the world. And you saw it this morning, Hong Kong, Hang Seng down 13%. Other markets across Asia down 6%, 7& to 10%. The Europeans now following suit, though not quite as dramatic and same in the United States with the opening for the Dow and the Nasdaq. Now, look, I'm not a market watcher. I'm a political scientist.
As a political scientist, what I find very interesting here is this fight between "Deep MAGA" and "Dark MAGA." And Deep MAGA being the people that really do believe that the US has not represented them for a very long time. And what they want is a fair shake from people that are more representative. They want the ability for working and middle class to have better lives and not be taken advantage of. They want non-predatory policy domestically. Dark MAGA, globalism, free trade, and capturing the policies of a smaller state that do their bidding. And this last weekend has been a repudiation, at least tactically of Dark maga by Deep MAGA. This was the fight you saw between Elon Musk and who runs DOGE, and this happens to be the richest man in the world and the second most powerful heretofore in the Trump administration. And Peter Navarro, who is trade and manufacturing counselor for the White House and nowhere near as powerful as Elon, and yet told Elon to stay in his lane, said, "You're interested in selling cars, and what we are doing is making America great again."
Navarro's not in a fight with Elon to be clear. Navarro is supporting a policy that he knows Trump wants. And so Trump has decided that on this one, which is the most impactful policy he's put in place globally in this or in his previous administration, that he is decisively going against the globalists and he's going in favor of using American power to have manufacturing and capital in the US. Now, nevermind the fact that this is going to take a long time. That if it were to work, and if it were to work, you'd want it to be consistent. You'd want to build up American reputational capital. You'd want rule of law to be strong. You'd want people to think that they could come to US universities and prosper, that the US would be the most attractive place to send their kids to have jobs, and Trump isn't doing any of those things, so that's a problem, right?
The fact that the US is making itself less attractive as a destination and less predictable as a destination really undermines US putting massive tariffs on highest you've seen in over a hundred years to make other countries pay. But politically, what Trump could benefit from doing here is actually leaning in against the globalists. In other words, if he were to say, "Yes, this hit to the markets is a feature, it's not a bug. Portfolios, they're going to get hit. And the rich people that have benefited on the backs of the average Americans, I don't care if they don't make a lot of money. Just like the foreign governments that have been taking advantage of American free trade policy," which is overstated. But nonetheless, the politically smart thing for Trump to do domestically would be to then say, "I'm going to snap back the tax breaks that I gave to the highest bracket.
You guys are going to start paying again, and I'm going to take the money from the tariffs. Take these effectively a sales tax, all the money that the US government will be collecting from these higher goods, and I'm going to redistribute it to the average American. I'm going to give that money to the workers so that they can deal with the fact that their pensions have just blown up by 10%, by 20% or more over the coming weeks. I'm going to give them an opportunity because they're going to have to pay higher prices in a more inflationary environment where you can't actually substitute away from imports because all goods are so interconnected, whether it's automotive or it's a plane ticket or it's just a cup of coffee at your local Starbucks."
All of those things, Trump has the opportunity to lean in to the Republican base, which is also a lot of the former progressive base among Democrats who they have lost, in part because they have moved away from policies that have very popular under Trump in firming up the border against illegal immigrants, and also in opposing overly progressive woke policies that are very unpopular across the United States. Having said that, I don't think that's what he's going to do. And the reason for it is because I think that ultimately Trump is more interested in kleptocracy than he is in taking power for himself. I think he's much more transactional. He's much easier to buy off as an individual. If you give him money, he will give you the policies he wants. He's not going to throw Elon away.
Elon's already given over $250 million to the campaign, and we'll give a lot more and we'll find ways to benefit Trump and his family. A lot of people like that, that want lower taxes for the rich. A lot of people like that, that want lower regulations that allow their companies to benefit more, that ultimately screw the average person in the United States. And I think Trump is more interested in that. If you really wanted to ensure that you could benefit the poor people, you wouldn't be taking away so many of the capacities of the IRS for example. You'd want audits on wealthy people instead of wealthy people being able to avoid taxes because the IRS doesn't even have the capacity to do the most complicated audits out there.
You would have a group of policies that would be much more focused towards ensuring that the wealthy actually pay their fair share, that legal and tax policies are not buyable by special interests, and ultimately that the swamp could be drained. And that just, even though I think that's where JD Vance is more oriented, and I think that's where increasingly house Republicans are more oriented. Lord knows that's the Republican base, which today are less educated men, working class and middle class. The Democrats have lost almost all those voters, but that's not where Trump is. And I think as a consequence, the political opportunity that he has will be constrained.
That ultimately also means that there'll be more of a balance and probably more of a snap back eventually in reducing these tariffs and finding deals earlier than you would otherwise expect. So maybe the market hit long-term is not as bad as it could be in a full-on anti-globalist push by the Trump administration. But ultimately, one thing we've learned by Trump, who again used to be a Democrat before he was Republican, he's fundamentally not ideological. He's fundamentally about Trump. And here navigating that probably means less pain as opposed to more. Even though in the near term today, this week, there's going to be plenty of carnage in the United States and around the world. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
The tariffs strike back: Is this the end of globalization?
My political compass has been spinning lately, and not just because Robert F. Kennedy Jr. admitted to ditching a bear corpse in Central Park before finally endorsing Donald J. Trump (that one caused a bit of political vertigo). My deeper confusion stems from the political debate about protecting our jobs.
It used to be, reliably, that the conservative right supported free trade and globalization, while the progressive left wanted protectionism for local industries.
Elections were fought on this, libraries were filled with studies on it.
For Republicans, Ronald Reagan’s 1988 Thanksgiving address was considered economic theology. “One of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world,” the Gipper said.
That era ended under Trump’s first administration when he used two tools to impose tariffs on a wide-ranging series of goods: Section 301 (tariffs that combat unfair trade practices) and Section 232 (tariffs that protect national security). These tariffs hit almost $280 billion of goods and, according to the American Action Forum, increased consumer costs by over $51 billion a year. By the way, Joe Biden kept most of these in place. Recently, Biden went even further, slapping $18 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese-produced EVs, semiconductors, and critical minerals, among other things. This is all part of the industrial policy he ushered in under the Inflation Reduction Act. So both sides love a good tariff.
But in this campaign cycle — it’s as if a sequel titled “The Tariffs Strike Back” has been released — we must wonder: Is this the beginning of the end of globalization and the rise of a new age of tariffs?
Both Republicans and Democrats are making tariff-happy promises. Trump has mused on the campaign trail that he would like to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the US.
“When companies come in and they dump their products in the United States, they should pay automatically, let’s say, a 10% tax … I do like the 10% for everybody,” the former president explained.
And it is not just in the US. Tariffs are being used everywhere.This week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau aligned with the US andannounced tariffs on Chinese-made EVs starting Oct. 1, and another 25% tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum.
“Actors like China have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace,” Trudeau said, “compromising the security of our critical industries and displacing dedicated Canadian auto and metal workers.”
He’s not wrong. China does have widespread, unfair trading practices. Using tariffs to rebalance against factors like low-wage workers or weak environmental standards is useful, as they can be to deal with trade imbalances. But it’s a slippery slope. Tariffs beget tariffs, and that starts a trade war where everyone loses.
Tariffs were critical to Trump’s first administration, especially as he renegotiated the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada. But economists at places like the CATO Institute concluded that tariffs cost taxpayers anywhere from $50 to $80 billion in higher prices. “American consumers (both firms and individuals), not foreigners, paid for — and continue to pay for — the tariffs,” the experts wrote.
So why are they back? If Trump 1.0 taught politicians across the spectrum anything, it's that there are no votes in supporting globalization. Most states and provinces have lost jobs and plants to cheap labor in places like China and Mexico, and protecting jobs wins elections today, even if it means higher prices tomorrow.
And that’s exactly what it means. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, if Trump were to impose the across-the-board 10% tariff, it “would amount to a roughly $1,500 annual tax increase for the typical household, including a $90 tax increase on food, a $90 tax increase on prescription drugs, and a $120 tax increase on oil and petroleum products.” And there is a real debate as to whether higher tariffs, which aim to create jobs, actually do so.
A study from the US Department of Agriculture revealed that Trump’s 2018 tariffs on major trading partners like China, Canada, and Mexico cost billions due to retaliation. “From mid-2018 to the end of 2019, this study estimates that retaliatory tariffs caused a reduction of more than $27 billion (or annualized losses of $13.2 billion) in US agricultural exports,” the study said.
This is a case of Hobson’s choice: Keep some manufacturing jobs in your community, but face higher prices, lower productivity, and retaliation from other countries. After all, one tariff begets another, and the costs pile up. But the political gains are real, so protectionism is on the march again.
Trump’s VP running mate, Sen. JD Vance, recently defended tariffs and, to be fair, many countries have massive exceptions to free trade that include cutouts to protect certain industries with subsidies and quotas. In the US, national security is used extensively as a form of industrial policy — Trump, for example, imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, citing national security concerns. And in Canada, banks and milk and cheese farmers in Quebec are protected.
But Vance has gone further, arguing that tariffs in principle are a net economic gain. A tariff “causes this dynamic effect where more jobs come into the country,” Vance recently said on “Meet the Press.” “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you’re ultimately much better off. You have more take-home pay, you have better jobs,” he added.
By that logic, more tariffs would keep growing the economy, so where will they stop? That is the road to end any form of free trade and globalization.
Strangely, Vance’s argument not only flies against the conventional wisdom of his own party — the GOP has long advocated for free trade and open markets — but it also parrots what the left argued for decades as they fought free trade and globalization even as they were ridiculed by people like Reagan.
During Trump’s first term, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation published a piece called “Is the GOP Still the Party of Free Trade?” and concluded that they are not, especially after Trump took the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That was a multilateral trade agreement with Asian countries meant to keep a strong US presence in Asia as a hedge against China. While 191 Republicans originally voted for it, that Republican Party no longer exists. “The effective abandonment of its free trade credentials sets the Republican Party on a perilous path,” wrote Phil Levy of the Reagan Foundation.
Democrats must be delighted that an argument they once lost so publicly is being relitigated. Now, both sides are arguing for the same thing and trying to outdo each other. It will be interesting to hear what Kamala Harris says about this as she finally reveals some policy.
We have now gone from embracing concepts like “nearshoring” and “friendshoring” for critical supply chain products like medicine and AI chips to picking winners and losers across the economy. This is 1970s industrial policy, and the distinction between the left and the right on this has become minimal.
Is this how globalization dies, one tariff at a time, in a series of trade wars and spats, Brexits and exits, until finally, the trade walls are back up, productivity plummets, and prices rise? Or is there a happy medium, where these global fights lead to a rise in both labor and environmental standards in places like China and Mexico and the cliched expression “fair trade, not free trade” actually becomes a reality?
Either way, it won’t be quick and, in the meantime, brace yourself for higher prices as your political compass keeps spinning wildly out of control.
Ian Bremmer addresses the audience at the 2024 US-Canada Summit in Toronto.
American and Canadian voters yearn for something they might never get
Is there a deep, secret yearning from American and Canadian voters for a radically open border? Do people really want Canada and the US to be more like the EU? OR, is border politics all about isolationism, security fears, and building walls? The results of an exclusive new poll from GZERO and Data Science will surprise you – and ought to be shaping the election campaigns in both countries.
We revealed part of the poll at the US-Canada Summit that I had the pleasure of co-hosting in Toronto, put on by the teams at Eurasia Group and BMO. Led off by our own Ian Bremmer and BMO’s CEO Darryl White, it included a remarkable collection of over 500 people, including political leaders from across the spectrum in both countries who debated, speechified, conversed, and argued.
Why are so many people so keen to discuss the US-Canada relationship? As Bremmer said, this is a hinge moment in history, with three wars raging — one in Ukraine, one in the Middle East, and one in the United States — a remark that caused gasps and nods. On top of that, 60+ elections are reshaping the world this year (Modi humbled in India, Macron in a showdown with the far right in France, Sunak shambolically slinking off in the UK). Meanwhile, China is threatening Taiwan, and AI is grinding its way through our economies and imaginations.
Gary Cohn, former director of the National Economic Council under Trump and the vice chairman of IBM, admitted that what worries him most is the collision between geopolitics and the economy. They are inextricably linked and making things worse. With the political bombs falling so close, people are desperately looking for a safe shelter, and that shelter is the US-Canada relationship. As Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said, squabbles between the two countries over tariffs or softwood lumber don’t add up to a pile of shell casing next to say China and Taiwan, which may be why the relationship is so often taken for granted or outright ignored. It is and remains one of the biggest bilateral trading relationships in the world.
Globalization is giving way to new forms of regionalism, or “friend-shoring with a vengeance.” But should the region have internal walls or not?
The mandate of the conference is to bring together people tired of partisan bickering, slogan swamping, and dizzying disinformationalizing – in other words, the bubble-blowing BS of everyday politics. They are urged to be authentic, honest, and, despite their political differences, get on with figuring out how to build something better and more secure than we have now. And they did.
Who joined in?
This is a partial list (pause for a long breath): Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, Industry Minister Francois Phillippe Champagne, Treasury Board President Anita Anand, who settled a major border strike during the conference, Ontario and Saskatchewan Premiers Doug Ford and Scott Moe, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, political wizards like David Axelrod from the Obama campaign and Christopher Liddell, the former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Donald Trump.
Speaking of the Trump folks, there was Gary Cohn, mentioned above, giving Canada a shot and saying it can “tag along” on US economic progress. Former Bank of Canada and England Governor Mark Carney spoke about building together based on common values, and there was Mitch Landrieu, the Biden/Harris 2024 National Campaign Co-Chair, who was in full fight mode over Trump. They were joined by more than 150 CEOs, dozens of policy wonks, and experts on everything from AI, security, economic policy, and more.
There were tray loads of interesting insights and ideas:
- On Trade: The 2026 review of the USMCA is widely seen as the most important framework for the economic future of North America, and there are genuine fears that if Trump wins (Turns out, Ivermectin may actually be a political vaccine against felony convictions) and senses that trade imbalances with the US have not changed, he will rip it up and send the economies reeling with nasty and counterproductive tariffs.
- On the Inflation Reduction Act: Candid admissions from US politicians that protectionism and US industrial policy can sideswipe Canada, simply because Canada gets forgotten.
- On Biden vs. Trump: A quote attributed to Bill Clinton was repeated as to why Biden’s good economic record is not reflected in his polling: “Strong and wrong beats weak and right.”
- On why Democrats are losing working-class voters: I asked David Axelrod why Democrats and progressives spend so much time convincing themselves that people like Trump are not fit for office but so little time reflecting on why their own policies are failing to connect with so many people. He told me — and later told the audience — that Democrats treat working-class Americans with such condescension it’s like anthropologist Margaret Mead studying what were then called “primitive societies” and telling them, “You need to be more like us, and we can teach you.” A devastating critique.
- Here is another Axe moment: Why are some independent and conservative voters tuning out Trump?” “Having Trump as president is like living next to someone who runs a leaf blower 24/7.”
- Personnel is policy: Gary Cohn spoke about why you need to know the people in power. “Any president gets to make 2,800 appointments — they make them all — but ‘personnel is policy,’ so if you want to know what Trump will do, see who he is appointing.” By the way, expect the USMCA trade negotiator Robert Leitheiser, the very guy who insisted on the six-year trade review, to be a senior member of the Trump team,
- Christopher Liddell of Trump White House 1.0, admitted that Trump didn’t know what he was doing in the first six months of his first term, but that it’s different this time, and that the planning and policies are already well underway. We should expect the first six months of a Trump 2.o to be rapid, decisive, and consequential, as he only has one term. His first target will be China and … his political enemies.
- On defense spending: Mark Carney said Canada has no more excuses and must reach 2% spending on NATO – just weeks before the NATO summit in Washington.
But there was one issue that lurked beneath the surface of cross-border politics and wasn’t raised: Should the demand by many US politicians to close down their southern border be counterbalanced by a much quieter, almost secret demand from people to … open the Canadian border, EU style?
It is not as crazy as it sounds.
GZERO commissioned an exclusive poll from our partners at Data Sciences and asked: Would you support an EU-like arrangement between the US and Canada?
The results are fascinating.
Overall, 53% said they would support such an arrangement – 50% in Canada and 55% in the US, while 33% are neutral. And, get this, only 14% are against the idea. Not surprisingly, it breaks down on party lines: 71% of Biden supporters are far more supportive the idea, while 45% of Trump supporters want it. In Canada, it’s almost an even split: 50% LPC/NDP lime it while on the right, 54% of CPC/PPC support the idea.
The point? The longest undefended border in the world is still very defended, and millions of people would like to cross more easily, work more freely, and trade more efficiently. In 2022, US trade with Mexico was $855 billion, and with China it was $758 billion. With Canada? $908 billion.
So making US-Canada trade more efficient with an EU-style arrangement seems like a no-brainer. Last week, we all celebrated D-Day and the beginning of the fight for peace. So many people died in that bloody sacrifice, yet today, the French and the Germans, who fought two world wars that left millions on both sides slaughtered, can move, trade, and work freely across each other's borders in a way Americans and Canada can only dream about. It is baffling.
If anything is a warning about why closing borders and setting up tariffs is disastrous, look at the UK and Brexit, which has essentially tanked the UK economy. The Brexit-loving Conservatives under Rishi Sunak are now facing a potential political extinction event on par with the Canadian Conservative party of 1993, when Brian Mulroney went from winning the biggest majority in Canadian history to stepping down months before an election his party lost so badly they were left with two lonely seats.
We are heading into a US election and a possible Canadian election where low growth, high inflation, and fear of an unstable world might kill prosperity. Why aren’t the two best friends in the world campaigning on an idea that has proven to be one of Europe’s great drivers of growth? An open border.
We all get it. The politics of the southern border is driving politics at the northern border, but if voters can distinguish between the two, why can’t politicians?
They likely never will. And this may be the most 2024 political moment of all: Ignore the quiet ideas people want, and focus on the noisy fights no one can stand.
Climate change is "wreaking havoc" on supply chains
Climate change is disrupting industries around the world, and that has a major impact on global trade. On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala lays out the case for diversifying and decentralizing production around the world to build resiliency and reduce risk in global supply chains.
“Climate change is wreaking havoc in so many places,” Okonjo-Iweala says, “If you concentrate your production in any one place, you risk really disrupting things.
The WTO Chief argues that by trading some of the “just-in-time” efficiency of global supply chains for resiliency, we can reduce the risk of climate disruption as well as the geopolitical risk of labor being contracted in a single country, like China.
“You see what is happening all over the world?" Okonjo-Iweala asks. "We do need to diversify if we want to build resilience.”
Watch the full interview: World trade at risk without globalization, warns WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Is the global food crisis here to stay? ›
- The geopolitics of the chips that make your tech work ›
- The Graphic Truth: The great supply chain squeeze ›
- Want to fix climate change? This is what it’ll take. ›
- What Africa has to say about climate change ›
- The Graphic Truth: Has climate change hurt or helped farmers? ›
- Ian Explains: Can we save the planet without hurting the economy? - GZERO Media ›
- "Climate is a problem, not the end of the world" - Danish author Bjorn Lomborg - GZERO Media ›
- Can the world run on green energy yet? Author Bjorn Lomborg argues that's very far off - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: Calling for the "reglobalization" of trade: WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
Listen: Ian Bremmer sits down with World Trade Organization Director General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first woman and first person from Africa to lead the organization, for a conversation about the good, the bad, and the future of global trade on the GZERO World podcast.
In the last half century, globalization has dramatically increased economic output, created hundreds of millions of jobs, and lifted millions of people out of poverty. But development between countries has been uneven, and global inequality is on the rise. Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine disrupted exposed weaknesses in the supply chain. And rising tension between the US and China has led to a world economy that’s becoming increasingly fractured.
But is the way out of a crisis not less trade, but more? How do we make sure the future of trade is fair to countries in the Global South, who are reeling from runaway debt and bearing the brunt of climate change?
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.
Ian Explains: What is the World Trade Organization?
You probably don’t spend a ton of time thinking about the World Trade Organization (WTO), but it has a huge role in almost every aspect of your daily life—from your morning Brazil-roasted coffee to the Chinese-made smartphone you’re probably using to watch this video.
The WTO is an international organization that deals with the complicated business of moving goods and services across borders. It’s kind of like the referee for global trade, setting the rules and providing a forum for countries to negotiate agreements and resolve disputes. It’s why you can buy avocados from Mexico, clothes from Vietnam, or cars from Korea in the United States without a second thought.
Global trade ballooned to a staggering $32 trillion in 2022 and the WTO oversees 98% of it.
The WTO has been a force for globalization. It’s opened up new markets, lowered tariffs, and lifted millions out of poverty, but it’s also received criticism for favoring wealthy nations and exacerbating global inequality. Not to mention a broken dispute settlement system that’s made resolving international trade conflict virtually impossible.
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer dives into the history of the WTO, why the US is blocking appointments of WTO judges, and what all of this has to do with Japanese octopus.
Watch the full interview: World trade at risk without globalization, warns WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
Watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television this weekend (check local listing) and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
- World Trade Organization - GZERO Media ›
- Women in power — the World Trade Organization's Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala ›
- Hard Numbers: GDP wars, WTO rules in Beijing’s favor, Africans support Chinese engagement, China winning 5G battle ›
- The Graphic Truth: Russia vs. US trade ties in Africa ›
- Graphic Truth: Who Wins From A US-China Trade War? ›
- Crisis at the WTO: Fixing a broken dispute system - GZERO Media ›
- Navigating global trade during uncertain times - GZERO Media ›