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 }}
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.
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.
What is Trump's Gaza playbook?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Want to talk about Gaza, which has not been as much in the headlines over the past month because so much other news has been emanating from Washington post Trump's inauguration. But he made some news on Gaza and it's relevant to the ongoing war and ceasefire, which is this idea that the United States is going to take over Gaza, develop it and make it into the Riviera, a new Riviera on the Mediterranean. Certainly they have the beachfront property, they don't have the infrastructure, especially not after the war over the last year plus. Trump saying that no US troops would be involved, but it's an enormous opportunity. The Palestinians would have to be resettled. It's not a new plan. He's been talking about this for the last year together with advisors. The idea that there's an enormous amount of money, particularly from the Gulf, that could be interested in investing on the ground. That security could be provided by the Egyptians. That the Palestinians could be temporarily resettled in Egypt, maybe in Jordan.
They would, at least in principle, have the right to return. But I mean, how much money? Probably $20 billion minimum. What's temporary mean? Probably talking about a generation. Are the Palestinians likely to believe that given what's happened on the ground in the West Bank? Hard to imagine. What does governance for the Palestinians look like? Well, Trump no longer supports a two-state solution, which he did support back in the days of the Abraham Accords. Others in the region certainly do, and they, at least in principle though, they're not willing to do an awful lot to bring that about. Of course, the two-state solution, if you are Arab in the region, doesn't necessarily mean democratic governance after all, with the exception of Israel. It's not like you have democratically elected governments across these states. So you're probably talking about something more technocratic and appointed. But still, what's happened is as Trump has been discussing this, the Jordanians and the Egyptians are unhappy and saying, "No way will they take any Palestinians."
The Gulf states are unhappy. The UAE, which has discussed some of this plan with Israel directly, slow rolling how much they'd be willing to do. The Saudis saying they don't support it. And so Trump with all of that and with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to Washington DC said, "Fine, I'll make an announcement by myself. I'll just do it if you refuse to be a part of it." And then the US diplomats were spending day and night back channeling with Gulf allies saying, "He didn't really mean he was going to take over all of it. He's not planning on taking over the land. Don't worry about it." What I would say is this is an opening strategy to try to get all of the states in the region together with Israel and negotiate what the development of Gaza would possibly look like. To get some commitments for investment. To get some commitments for security.
And there's a lot of space between all of the Palestinians are resettled because certainly they're not all interested in leaving. But some of them certainly are. And you can hardly blame them even though it's their homeland because there is nothing left and it's really hard to get humanitarian aid in, and it's not likely to get meaningfully better, even with the ceasefire, which may not hold up anytime soon. And given the fact that 80% of Israelis polled in the Jerusalem Post, which is a pretty middle of the road survey group and media institution in Israel, say they want all of the Palestinians in Gaza resettled. Given that and given the fact that if you were to engage in reconstruction that security would be necessary, there's going to be an effort to at least create buffer zones, which means more resettlements internally and a desire to allow Palestinians that want to leave the ability to leave.
And Trump would love to create some facts on the ground there. The way he's creating facts on the ground by bringing some illegal migrants in the United States to Guantanamo. There aren't facilities for them, so they set up some tents. But even if it's only one or two planes, suddenly it becomes a policy. And that's precisely what the Trump administration wants to see with the Palestinians and Gaza is that if you are getting out a few busloads or a few shiploads or a few plane loads, then suddenly it's not a question of can they be resettled, but how many and over what time? It's a very different policy discussion, and that's exactly where they and the Israeli government are looking to get to. Now, who's going to take these Palestinians? Right now nobody. Trump was asked if he was going to be willing to, if the United States what his response was, "Well, it's really too far," which doesn't seem to be his perspective for the white Afrikaners in South Africa who are even farther away.
So maybe it's not really about distance. It might be something else. But nonetheless, I do expect that when Trump says that the Egyptians and Jordanians will take some, that if they are paid to take some and what some means and what kind of population and how they're going to be vetted is all to be discussed. But some would not surprise me at all, might be a matter of hundreds or a few thousand. I don't think it's a matter of hundreds of thousands. But again, it starts that conversation. It changes the policy. And especially if we end up reopening the fighting in Gaza, which I think is quite likely over the coming weeks and months, then there becomes more urgency to engage for some of the Palestinians there in more resettlement, more willingness to. So that's what I think this is all about right now.
We are not close to a Palestinian state. We are not close to a broad agreement that would allow the Gulfies to engage fully in what Trump is demanding or to expand the Abraham Accords, to include Saudi Arabia opening diplomatic ties with Israel. But all of this is on the table and is the backdrop for what Trump is putting forward right now. So that's what we're talking about and something we'll be watching really closely. Hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
US troops commenced work on the construction of the floating pier that will bring humanitarian aid into Gaza on Monday
Is the US-built floating pier for Gaza aid safe?
The US military has completed the construction of a floating pier that’s meant to increase the flow of desperately needed aid into the war-ravaged Gaza Strip. Shipments are expected to begin in the coming days, and the Pentagon says the pier could eventually lead to the delivery of approximately 2 million meals per day.
Security issues: The operation involves complex logistics and presents numerous security concerns. The shoreline distribution area came under mortar fire during construction — raising questions as to how it will be kept safe from future attacks.
Though US troops won’t be on the ground in Gaza, they’re participating in the delivery process, and lawmakers in Washington have expressed concern over the risks. The US military says their safety is a “top priority.”
“The last thing Biden wants is dead US soldiers or servicemen in Gaza or a situation where he has to put boots on the ground,” says Gregory Brew, a Eurasia Group analyst.
Though Hamas will likely be “tempted to target the operation,” Brew says it’s hard to see how the militant group would benefit from this because disrupting aid could degrade support among the local population. “But the pier is going to be a target regardless.”
It also seems unlikely that Iran or its proxies will get involved, Brew says, given “Tehran has maintained its distance from the events inside Gaza.”
Israeli forces will oversee security on the shore, and the UN will handle distributing the aid. Meanwhile, two US warships in the area are ready to protect US forces or allies if necessary.
Mourners react next to the body of a Palestinian killed in Israeli strikes, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Al-Aqsa hospital, in Deir Al-Balah, in the central Gaza Strip, May 12, 2024.
Did the Gaza death toll numbers really change?
Months of fighting between Hamas and Israeli forces have resulted in a mounting death toll in Gaza. Most news outlets have relied upon the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry for casualty figures, which show roughly 35,000 dead, but there have been questions about accuracy. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, recently offered a new breakdown of the death toll — based on health ministry numbers — that aimed to paint a clearer picture of how many of those killed have been identified.
But rather than provide clarity, the new numbers have led to a wave of confusion and misleading claims. By focusing on those killed who have been identified, the UN agency appeared to report a lower number of women and children killed than in previous reports.
UN tries to clarify. The UN is now playing cleanup, maintaining that the overall death toll has not changed and is roughly 35,000. What’s changed, it says, is that nearly 25,000 bodies have been “fully identified,” and more than half are women and children. In other words, approximately 10,000 bodies are unidentified — and thousands of people, many of them women and children, are still missing under the rubble.
The confusion is indicative of the extraordinarily difficult — and often politicized — process of tallying war deaths.
But it is also sowing distrust. The Jewish state’s top diplomat pointed to the update as evidence that the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers, which the UN largely relies on for its figures, cannot be trusted.
“Anyone who relies on fake data from a terrorist organization in order to promote blood libels against Israel is antisemitic and supports terrorism,” Israel Katz, the Israeli foreign minister, tweeted Monday.
Part of the process. Death tolls from conflicts and other fatal events are routinely revised as more information is gathered: After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, for example, Israel initially reported that around 1,400 Israelis were killed. The Israeli government has since revised that to around 1,200.
Accurately tallying how many people have been killed in an active war zone is notoriously difficult, and fully identifying all of the dead can take decades. In March, for example, a US sailor killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, was finally identified over 80 years later.
Looking at it another way, WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier said that the fact that 25,000 people have now been identified, is actually “a step forward.”
So can the Gaza Health Ministry numbers be trusted? Israel has repeatedly claimed that the death toll reported by the health ministry is manipulated. Skeptics of the numbers also take issue with the fact that it doesn’t differentiate between civilians and combatants.
But top humanitarian organizations and leading experts say that the numbers from the health ministry have historically proven reliable. The ministry’s tally is largely calculated via hospital records, and it releases casualty updates every couple of hours. Though the Israeli government has publicly cast doubt on the veracity of the health ministry’s estimates, Israeli intelligence services have also reportedly concluded that the figures are generally accurate.
The WHO on Tuesday also said it remained confident in the overall figures from Gaza’s health ministry, stating that there’s “nothing wrong with the data.”