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 }}
Can Trump and Carney reset US-Canada relations?
But it has reduced cause for panic, in part because Trump stated a commitment of the United States to the basic alliance, to the security umbrella, to defending Canada as necessary, which was something he wasn't saying over the past few months with Justin Trudeau. He clearly likes Carney more than Trudeau, which is not surprising because that bar is pretty much on the floor. And also stopped with the governor speak, which is clearly disrespectful, but did push on the 51st state issue, and how much better it would be for Canada if they were actually a part of the United States, not that he intends to take it over militarily, but rather something he's going to keep talking about.
And Carney didn't interrupt Trump when he was going on and on, talking about that, but then responded with his best line of the conversation, which is, "I've spent the last couple months going around talking to the owners of Canada, meaning the voters, the citizens of Canada, and it's never, never, never going to happen." Trump says, "Never say never," and they kind of agree to disagree on something they shouldn't be talking about to begin with. But at the end of the day, not much there. The bigger problem, of course, is that there is an incredibly important trade relationship between the US and Canada. And no, it is not true that the US doesn't do much business with Canada. In fact, Canada actually buys more from the United States than any other individual country in the world does. And if you go talk to the governors, the senators, the representatives of all of the northern states that border Canada, they can tell you just how integrated those supply chains are, how essential the Canadian economy is for them.
And some of those are blue states, some of those are red states, and it don't really matter, they all care a lot about their relationship with Canada. So, it is important. But because Trump is individually taking the right to tariff from Congress, where it legally sits, and using legally contestable national emergency clauses to enforce tariffs, impose tariffs on other countries, including those that are governed by pre-existing trade relationships, like Canada, which has a robust USMCA, US-Mexico-Canada agreement, that Trump himself helped drive, negotiate, and trumpeted as a huge win at the time, but now he is singularly undermining it. And what that means is that we are very unlikely to get to a new agreed USMCA in the coming year, despite the utility of renegotiating it with the sunset clause, and instead... look, I don't think anyone's going to run away from it, I don't think it's going to break, instead, it means that every year we're going to kick it down the road and renegotiate so that you can keep it going.
And that means that the Canadians don't feel like they have a functional multilateral trade arrangement with the US and Mexico, that also means, because the US president can change it at any moment he wishes, and also that an enormous amount of time is going to be spent in those negotiations, not just now, but every year, creating more uncertainty for those that need to want to rely on the long-term stability of that trade relationship. And here is the rub, which is that the US-Canada relationship will stay important, it'll stay robust, but it will become more transactional, where it had been built on trust and shared values, and that means the Canadians will work really hard to hedge and de-risk their relations from their most important trading partner.
About 75% of Canadian trade is with the United States right now, they rely much more on the US than the Americans rely on Canada, Trump is absolutely right about that, but they now see that as a vulnerability. And for the last 40 years, the Canadians, really since '88, '89, the Canadians have focused singularly on increasing their interdependence with the United States. They built out all of this infrastructure from the provinces, not east-west, but rather north-south. If you look at the way that rail transit, and energy infrastructure, and supply chains work in Canada, it's as if these provinces were independent republics set up to do business just with the United States, not focused on what would make sense for an independent sovereign Canada over the long term, if that relationship suddenly were ruptured.
Well, that needs to change, and that's something that you're going to see the Canadians work very strongly on over the coming years. Easier for Carney to do, because his relationships internationally are much stronger than previous Canadian prime ministers, certainly generationally, if you think about the fact that he was Central Bank governor in the UK, and that one of his best international relationships is actually with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and others and others, I think you're going to see a very strong effort to work with the UK, to work with the Commonwealth, to work with the EU, and to help shift those trade flows over time to hedge further away from the US.
And the costs of that will be significant, the impact of the trade rupture in the near term will be a major recession in Canada imminently, and a mild recession in the United States imminently as well, but over the long term, my view is no one benefits from that.
So, that's the main takeaway, a little less theatric maybe than the internet, apologies for that, but it is the way I see it, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Does Trump's campus crackdown violate the First Amendment?
The Trump administration says it's defending free speech by confronting liberal bias on college campuses—but is it doing the opposite? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters explains how the administration’s focus on elite universities has led to sweeping actions that may ultimately restrict speech, especially for foreign-born students. “These are not students who smashed windows or assaulted security guards,” Peters says. “It’s pretty hard to see how the administration can make the case that these people are national security threats.”
And the impact is already being felt. Peters points to advice from university officials telling students to avoid posting on social media out of fear that political expression might jeopardize their legal status. In Trump’s America, he argues, the First Amendment is being selectively applied—and for some communities, the price of speaking out may be higher than ever.
Watch full episode: The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Trump’s ‘less is more’ message is un-American
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: I wanted to spend a few moments talking about a quote I heard from Trump this weekend. Did an interview where he said, "I don't think a beautiful baby girl that's 11 years old needs to have 30 dolls. I think she can have three dolls or four dolls. They don't need to have 250 pencils, they can have five." And my immediate thought was, this is one of the most anti-American things I have ever heard a US president say. I was very surprised by it, honestly. I heard back from a lot of folks and they said, "Well, how about when Trump in the same interview said that he wasn't sure about upholding the constitution? Isn't that worse?" And I'm like, well, yeah, maybe it's worse, but it's not more anti-American. I mean, not knowing how the constitution works or claiming you don't know how the constitution works, that may be bad, but it's not anti-American. But saying we shouldn't be able to buy and have all the stuff we want, that's anti-American.
We Americans want maximum stuff. I remember growing up with George Carlin, you needed places to put your stuff. When you ran out of places to put your stuff, you had a garage so that you could put your stuff there so that you could go out and buy more stuff. This isn't new. We've had this for a very long time, and this is Trump's in, right? He puts his name on planes and buildings. It's not about less but better high quality stuff. That's other countries. Japan does less amount of stuff, but very, very high quality. Takes decades to make that kind of stuff. Artisans spend their entire lives sort of on one carving or one piece of chocolate. No, we don't do that. We are a country of 250 breakfast cereals in the cereal aisle, and that's separate from granola. I'm just talking about cereal.
This is Trump's id. This is the guy that has turned the Oval Office into Versailles because there wasn't enough gold plating, gold gilding. Nobody reflects the supremacy of American consumption better than Donald Trump. Trump steaks. Trump watches. Trump gold sneakers. Trump coin. More stuff. And look, when he said beautiful baby girls have dolls, that's on brand, right? No question. Not boys. Boys can't have dolls. Boys have action figures which are basically dolls, but they sound tougher, and they should ideally have guns or pencils. Boys can have pencils. For me, Tonka truck, right? Maybe he didn't have time to think of a Tonka truck. It was a live interview, but a Tonka yellow dump truck. That was my favorite toy without question as a beautiful baby boy of 11 years old growing up. But either way, the point is not that an 11-year-old beautiful baby girl needs 11 or 20 or 30 dolls, but what if they want 30 dolls?
And God forbid that dad before 'Liberation Day' couldn't afford 30 dolls, but could only afford three dolls. What do you do then? Now, that girl only gets a third of a doll, right? Which part of the doll then? Just the head. I guess just the head. Because then at least you can keep an imaginary conversation going on with the doll. You don't want just the feet. And by the way, Zuckerberg I think can help with that since he's all about AI so that Americans who don't have as many friends as the average American wants to have can have that many friends. Now, that's super dystopian, but it's not anti-American. That's American. If we can't have as many friends as we want, we should be able to buy those friends, even if they're not real people. That's American. So look, Trump isn't actually saying we can't have 30 dolls, but Trump is saying it's going to take time with all the tariffs that we have to be patient.
And look, patience is anti-American. You don't elect Trump if you're patient. You elect Trump because you want stuff now. What, is Trump now going to say that America's going to embrace the slow food movement? That's not American. Trump's the guy that won the election after serving at McDonald's, right? And by the way, not serving at the counter, but serving at the drive-thru because it's not enough to have fast food, but you have to fast food even faster than you would normally have fast food by going into the restaurant. Trump is the guy that made RFK Jr. eat McDonald's on the Trump plane. Trump's the guy that brought hundreds of thousands of calories of McDonald's for that football team when they visited the White House, when we may have some of the world's highest levels of obesity. But if you just give us a minute, we will also have the world's highest consumption of Ozempic. Mr. President, make America great again. Thank you.
The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
In the United States, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro argues that institutions once devoted to open inquiry are increasingly undermining that mission. “Universities have forgotten their basic responsibilities,” he says, citing unequal rule enforcement and what he calls an “illiberalism” that predates Trump but has intensified with political polarization. Shapiro supports the Trump administration’s aggressive scrutiny of elite universities but warns that some immigration-related free speech crackdowns risk overreach: “I'd prefer the administration go after clear immigration violations, not rely on vague designations like ‘harmful to foreign policy.’”
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters warns that the Trump administration’s tactics may do more harm than good. “Rather than executing clean policies that defend free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” Peters points to a growing “chilling effect,” especially among international students, who are now being advised to self-censor for fear of legal consequences. Both guests agree that university culture has played a role in the current crisis, but they differ sharply on whether the government’s response is upholding or threatening the First Amendment.
In America’s culture wars, free speech is no longer just a right—it’s a weapon, and both sides are wielding it.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Free speech in Trump's America with NYT journalist Jeremy Peters and conservative scholar Ilya Shapiro
Listen: Free speech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, but what does it actually mean today? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute and New York Times free speech reporter Jeremy Peters. They discuss how free expression is being defined—and challenged—on university campuses and by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to national immigration policy. “The dynamic of ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ is prevalent,” Shapiro warns, pointing to inconsistent enforcement of campus speech rules and a broader “illiberalism” taking hold in higher education.
The conversation turns to the Trump administration’s aggressive response to Israel/Gaza protests, including efforts to penalize non-citizen students for their political speech. Peters cautions that this approach may violate the very rights the administration claims to defend. “Rather than execute a clean policy to support free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” The potential legal battles ahead could determine how far the government can go in defining speech as a national security issue, especially for non-citizens.
Both guests acknowledge that antisemitism on campus has become a flashpoint, but differ on how it’s being addressed. Shapiro argues that while not all anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitic, many protesters are crossing that line: “It’s possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, but it’s very rare in my experience.” Peters agrees the issue is complex and evolving, noting that universities “seem much more focused on preventing antisemitism than they were just a year ago.” Together, the guests raise urgent questions about the balance between expression, identity, and institutional responsibility in a sharply divided political landscape.
How did 'free speech' become a partisan weapon in America?
In the United States today, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Republicans have embraced free speech as a culture war rallying cry, using it to combat what they see as liberal censorship on college campuses and social media. Donald Trump even signed an executive order on his first day back in office aimed at curbing government interference in free speech. But Democrats argue that the same administration is now weaponizing federal power, targeting foreign students, threatening university funding, and punishing dissenting voices in ways that undermine the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Both parties claim to be protecting free speech, just not the same kind.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
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.
Vietnam War, 50 years on
Fifty years ago today, North Vietnamese troops seized Saigon, and ended the Vietnam war with a communist victory. GZERO writers and producers have taken a deep dive into the history behind this solemn occasion, exploring life in Saigon during the war, the emotional and chaotic scenes that unfolded as thousands fled, the life Vietnamese-Americans built from scratch in their new homes, and asking whether we have learned the lessons of the war.
50 Years on, have we learned the Vietnam War's lessons?
Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies — and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to become a regional economic powerhouse.
Saigon’s Last Day: The fall, the flight, and the aftermath of the Vietnam War
Don Shearer, US Defense Department via National Archives
Saigon, April 29, 1975. For six weeks, South Vietnamese forces have been falling back in the face of a determined communist offensive. American troops have been gone for two years. The feeble government is in disarray. The people are traumatized by three decades of war and three million deaths.
Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” begins playing on radios across the capital.
Some Saigonese know it’s a sign: It is time to run.
Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, now a Columbia University history professor, was just five months old, the youngest of nine children. After a failed first escape attempt by helicopter, her family heard about an uncle with access to an oil transport boat. More than 100 refugees crammed aboard the small vessel, where they waited for hours to set sail. Nguyen’s father nearly became separated when he dashed back into the city in a futile attempt to find more relatives.
At nightfall, they finally departed, crossing enemy-controlled territory under cover of darkness before being ordered onto an ammunition barge floating off the coast, bursting with over 1,000 refugees.
“When the sun rose the next day, April 30, we realized Saigon had fallen,” says Nguyen.
Read more about the amazing stories of survival, and just what happened to Vietnam after the war here.
PODCAST: Revisiting the Vietnam War 50 years later, with authors Viet Thanh Nguyen and Mai Elliott
On the GZERO World Podcast, two authors with personal ties to the Vietnam War reflect on its enduring legacy and Vietnam’s remarkable rise as a modern geopolitical player.
Life in Saigon during the Vietnam War
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, author Mai Elliott recalls how witnessing the human toll of the Vietnam War firsthand changed her views — and forced her to keep a life-altering secret from her own family.
Growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in 1980s America
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer,Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen shares what it was like growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in the US — and how the Americans around him often misunderstood the emotional toll of displacement.