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 }}
Several groups led by DACA recipients gathered at La Placita Olvera in Los Angeles, California, on November 11, 2024, for a rally and march in response to policies President-elect Trump has promised to enforce against immigrants who have entered the country.
Can Trump end birthright citizenship?
The lawsuit, led by New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, argues that Trump can’t unilaterally rewrite the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship to every baby born in the US. They point to the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision, which set the precedent of birthright citizenship regardless of the parents’ legal status in 1873.
Trump argues that revoking birthright citizenship is critical to curbing illegal migration to the US. He is supported by a minority of legal scholars who say that Wong Kim Ark decision misinterpreted the Constitution. They argue that because unauthorized migrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law – in the sense that they can’t vote and are excluded from certain rights afforded to Americans – that the 14th Amendment does not apply to them or their children.
Will Trump succeed? Trump can’t rewrite the 14th Amendment or 100 years of legal precedent with an executive order, but he could with the help of sympathetic judges. Lower courts are likely to side with the states, but if Trump appeals, it is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, where the Conservative majority has not shied away from overturning legal precedent in recent terms.Washington , DC - January 20: President-elect Donald Trump arrives ahead of the 60th inaugural ceremony on January 20, 2025, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. Trump becomes the 47th president of the United States in a rare indoor inauguration ceremony. The parade was also moved inside Capitol One Arena due to weather.
Trump’s 2025 Inaugural: From American Carnage to Golden Age
“Nothing will stand in our way. The future is ours and our golden age has just begun.”
With those words, President Donald J. Trump concluded his 2025 inaugural address, promising an American renaissance. Invoking the doctrine of American exceptionalism, he declared that “We are going to win like never before” and pledged to be a unifier and peacemaker who would nonetheless put America First.
A shift in tone. The speech was a stark contrast to Trump’s inaugural address of 2017, where he painted a gloomy picture of “American carnage”: a nation riddled with crime, poverty, and economic decline. This time, while he heavily criticized the previous administration for its decisions, Trump adopted a more optimistic and forward-looking tone, emphasizing unity and national restoration – and even territorial expansion. Trump invoked the concept of Manifest Destiny, promising to plant the American flag on Mars, as well as rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” and retake the Panama Canal.
Border Security and Immigration. Trump will declare a national emergency at America’s southern border (which earned him one of several standing ovations), reinstate his “Remain in Mexico” policy, and designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. He also pledged to use the Enemy Aliens act of 1798 to deploy military power to eliminate foreign gangs in American cities.
Health and Wealth. Trump promised to “end the chronic disease epidemic” but gave no further specifics. On the prosperity front, he promised to restore America’s strength in manufacturing and that his cabinet would “marshal powers to defeat inflation and bring down costs and prices”, which he said were caused by government overspending and high energy prices.
Drill baby drill. To that end, Trump promised to overturn President Joe Biden’s Green New Deal and expand the exploitation of oil and gas resources, which he dubbed the “liquid gold beneath our feet” that America should export. He spoke of tariffs, but without specifics, promising to create an External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs duties and revenues, as well as a department of government efficiency to cut spending.
Woke wars. Trump promised to sign an executive order to “stop all government censorship”, “bring back free speech to America” and create a society that is “colour blind and merit based.” He declared that the United States has only two genders, male and female.
The military. Trump promised to restore back pay to servicemen who had lost their jobs for refusing the federal COVID vaccine mandate. He pledged to remove “radical theories” from the military and leave it “free to focus on its sole mission – defeating America’s enemies.”
Will Trumponomics cause a slowdown for the US economy?
Donald Trump’s economic agenda blends deregulation, anti-immigration policies, higher tariffs, and loose fiscal policy—an approach that "cuts in multiple different directions," says Jon Lieber during a GZERO livestream to discuss the 2025 Top Risks report. Lieber says deregulation could boost productivity, while measures like deportations and trade barriers risk straining industries reliant on foreign labor and open markets. With markets pricing in optimism but key sectors facing uncertainty, the impact of Trumponomics will hinge on how far the administration goes in implementing its campaign promises in 2025 and beyond.
Take a deep dive with the panel in our full discussion, livestreamed on Jan. 6 here.
Alice Weidel, AfD national chairman, waits on the sidelines of her party's national convention for a TV interview to begin. The AfD wants to adopt its election program in Riesa.
What is “remigration” and why is the German far right calling for it?
European media is abuzz with a new term embraced by Alternative for Germany, or AfD, party chair Alice Weidel during her disturbing speech at the far-right party’s leadership conference on Saturday: “remigration.” AfD has surged to second place in national polls ahead of Germany’s Feb. 23 election – following four years of anemic growth and ineffective government. The party has also enjoyed support from American right-wingers like Elon Musk, who streamed Weidel’s speech on his social media.
What is “remigration”? A term popularized in the German-speaking world by Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner, it refers to forcibly removing immigrants who refuse to integrate with German culture, regardless of their citizenship status. In other words, a German of Turkish or Syrian descent, born and raised in the country, could be expelled, though just how the scheme would work is not clear.
Eagle-eyed readers will recognize this as ethnic cleansing in a fancy dress, and given Weidel’s attempts to portray herself as electable, her embrace of the term is striking. She may have felt emboldened by the AfD’s state-level victories in September in Thuringia, where reactionary Björn Höcke ran the show. Notably, Weidel’s crowds have taken to chanting “Alice für Deutschland!” — a deliberate homophone of the banned Nazi slogan “Alles für Deutschland!”
Will AfD take power? Probably not — they’re 10 percentage points behind the center-right Christian Democratic Union, and they are reviled by all other parties. But given how strongly the far right is performing in Europe, the party’s agenda can push political discourse further to the right. In addition to remigration, Weidel wants to close Germany’s borders, quit using the Euro, and start buying Russian gas.
Even if the AfD loses, it will have its largest-ever voice in the Bundestag. The CDU will need a coalition, but negotiations with the next largest parties are likely to be fraught. We’re watching for extended gridlock in Berlin.
Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Marc Miller speaks at a press conference about the government's border plan as Public Safety and Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc listens, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, on Dec. 17, 2024.
Canada does about-face on immigration
Canadian Immigration Minister Marc Miller announced last Friday that Ottawa will pause new parent and grandparent sponsorship applications to address a 40,000-application backlog. Simultaneously, thousands of migrant caregivers find themselves in limbo as the government hits the brakes on proposed pathways to permanent residency, leaving many without legal status.
The moves represent the latest reversals of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ambitious immigration policies, implemented in 2016, which sought to expand family reunification and increase overall permanent residency applications to 305,000 a year. Those numbers climbed further after the COVID-19 pandemic when the government admitted over 437,000 new permanent residents and 604,000 temporary workers in 2022, and 471,550 new permanent residents and 1,646,300 temporary workers in 2023. During the same period, the government also finalized close to 2,000,000 study permits. Those permits have now been capped at 437,000 for 2025.
Immigration is seen by some as the undoing of Trudeau, who announced his resignation on Jan. 6 after nine years in power. The PM’s ambitious post-pandemic immigration targets brought the population to 40 million, but housing shortages, rising rents, and stretched social services fueled voter discontent. Traditionally low opposition to immigration soared from 27% to 58% in the past two years, “the most rapid change over a two-year period since Focus Canada began asking this question in 1977,” according to Environics.
President-elect Donald Trump greets Elon Musk before attending a viewing of the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket, in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., on Nov. 19, 2024.
Is Musk Trump’s muse – or his manipulator?
Is Elon Musk a 21st-century Svengali? Two weeks after being accused of acting like the president – instead of a presidential advisor – when he attempted to sway Congress to torpedo a spending bill, the tech magnate is wielding political influence once again – and enraging some supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.
At issue: the H-1B Visa program, which Musk says is crucial to attracting foreign tech talent, but which many Republicans claim takes jobs away from Americans. Last Friday, Musk and fellow Department of Government Efficiency head Vivek Ramaswamyfeuded publicly with GOP firebrand Laura Loomer, who posted to X Thursday, “Donald Trump promised to remove the H1B visa program and I support his policy.”
On Friday, Musk posted that “hateful unrepentant racists” – a swipe at MAGA anti-immigrant Republicans – must be removed from the Republican Party “root and stem.” The next day, Trump seemed to toe Musk’s line: Despite having previously criticized the H-1B program as “very bad” and “unfair” for US workers, Trump told the New York Post, “I’ve always liked the visas. I have always been in favor of the visas.” Hmm.
But it’s not clear just whose team Musk is playing for. While telling racists to leave the GOP and praising the contribution of foreign workers in the US, Musk declared his support for Germany’s far-right anti-immigrant party, Alternative for Germany, aka AfD, ahead of Deutchland’s February elections. Three state chapters of the AfD in the former communist East are classified as extremist – and are under surveillance by Germany’s domestic intelligence service.
But the contradictions don’t seem to bother Trump. “Where are you?” Trump posted on his Truth Social account Friday morning, entreating Musk to visit him and Bill Gates at Mar-a-Lago, aka “the center of the universe.”
For more on MAGA, the American dream, and immigration, check out Ian Bremmer’s latest Quick Take here.
MAGA, the American Dream and immigration
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take in this holiday season on the back of the biggest fight in the United States that we have seen among Trump supporters since his election win.
Started off when Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire, the co-director of this new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE as they're calling it, writing that we have to bring in lots of high-talent immigrants, complaining that American culture isn't getting it right for the people that they need to hire in order to make the United States win and more competitive. We hear it all the time. You need to staple a green card to every STEM PhD that's being awarded to non-Americans in the US so they can stay. You need to keep those students here. You need to bring in far more talented legal immigrants in larger numbers to address the talent gap in the United States, and if Americans want to win, that's what you need to do.
The average American has heard this before, and they've heard it for a long time. To be clear, it is not like the US economy isn't winning right now. You look at the stock market, you look at corporate profits, you look at Elon Musk, the dude is worth nearly half a trillion dollars, and that's with a very strong dollar. Look at how the United States' economy has performed since the pandemic, while Europe, and Japan, and South Korea, and Canada, and others just are not, and they're not innovating, and they don't have the big companies. I've heard this about other issues. I've heard about tariffs. I've heard about even free trade. You hear it about investments and capital flows around the world and need to make things work more effectively for the big money in the United States. And working-class and middle-class Americans know that when elites in the US say that the US is going to win, that it doesn't mean 'em. The United States, for so many Americans, is a country of second-class healthcare, and second-class education, and second-class opportunities. And if the American dream doesn't work for the average American citizen, then you're telling them we should be bringing in really much more talented Indians? Good luck with that argument for them.
And those of you that know me, know that that's not my personal perspective. I grew up in the projects with a mother though that did absolutely everything for her kids. And I had opportunities. We had opportunities. I feel very lucky to have been born in America, not better than anyone else, not having any more intrinsic worth, just super, super fortunate. So the American Dream absolutely worked for me. Capitalism in the US and the ability to be an entrepreneur absolutely worked for me. But most of the kids that grew up in my neighborhood don't feel that way today, along with far too many working and middle-class Americans.
And if the United States felt like the land of opportunity instead of a two-tier system where you buy your way into privilege, and you buy your way into opportunity, and then you make sure you do that for your kids, and the best indicator of how well an American is going to do is how fortunate your parents are compared to other advanced industrial democracies, rich democracies around the world, well, that is not a country that's going to say, "Yeah, we need to do more to help the wealthiest win." Because the wealthiest have already figured out how to win for themselves, and there are lobbying dollars, and their access to the best that the world has to offer for them in the United States. If the average American felt that way and felt that applied to them, then Trump wouldn't be president today. You wouldn't have "America First" resonating for so many people that want to undermine globalism because globalism wasn't about the globe and it wasn't about all Americans. It was about just getting it done for that small, small group of people with access to capital.
This is the failure of globalism, and this is why the United States doesn't want to take the lead on global security, or global trade, or even global democracy anymore. You have to be a leader at home before you can effectively lead anybody, nevermind everybody else. This is what we're facing come January 20th. I think it's a useful fight to see play out publicly because there's a very big difference between those that have access to decision-making, power and authority in the United States and those that turned out and actually voted, the masses that voted against the establishment. And to the extent that they continue to be hard done by and every expectation for the last 40 years in the US is that that will be the case, whether it's a Democrat or Republican running the country, this situation is only going to get more toxic.
That's it for me. I wish everyone Happy holidays. Hope you had a merry Christmas. Looking forward to the new Year. I'll talk to you all real soon.
People attend an anti-immigration protest, in London, Britain, October 26, 2024.
UK prime minister promises border crackdown
The UK Labour Party, as the expression goes, hits different now. At least when it comes to immigration.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the party’s leader, lambasted what he called the UK’s post-Brexit “open borders” policies and promised a comprehensive crackdown on immigration.
This capped a sea change in the party’s views under Starmer, who took over from his (much) further left and more pro-immigration predecessor Jeremy Corbyn in 2020, and led the party back to power for the first time in 14 years in July.
The context: Since the UK “Brexited” from the EU, immigration numbers have soared under successive Conservative governments. Last year, net migration hit a record high of 906,000 people. Immigration debates have roiled the country with particular fury in recent months. August saw violent clashes between xenophobic mobs and immigrant gangs, stoked in part by online misinformation. The government's response, which included the arrests of several people for stoking anti-immigrant violence online, drew harsh criticism from anti-immigration groups and free speech activists.
The bigger story: Across the continent, just as across the pond, backlashes against mass immigration are a defining feature of politics. No longer solely a right-wing issue, parties from all points on the political spectrum must find a politically tenable position on the issue.