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 }}
Tourists in the center of Madrid, Spain, after the announcement of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to block almost 66,000 illegal ads, on May 19, 2025.
HARD NUMBERS: Spain clamps down on Airbnb, Cat busted smuggling drugs in Costa Rica, and More
66,000: Amid growing concerns from residents, the Spanish government is calling for the removal of 66,000 Airbnb listings for violating tourist accommodation regulations. Protests have been erupting across the country – the second most popular tourist destination in the world, behind France – as frustration mounts over over-tourism and a housing crisis.
50: Of the 240 Venezuelans deported from the United States to El Salvador, at least 50 entered the United States legally and violated no immigration laws, according to an analysis from the center-right CATO Institute. This study follows an earlier report that 75% of the 240 men had no criminal record.
100: Israel allowed the United Nations to bring 100 aid trucks into Gaza on Tuesday, caving to mounting international pressure to provide relief for residents affected by an eleven-week blockade. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher called for more aid, estimating that 14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours without immediate access to more aid.
$5 million: The Trump administration is discussing whether to offer $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was killed as she stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as part of a settlement over a wrongful-death lawsuit. President Donald Trump granted clemency to all those involved in the Jan. 6 riot, but this move would go a step further.
235.65: Officers at Pococi Penitentiary in Costa Rica apprehended a paws-itively furry culprit caught up in a prison drug-smuggling scheme: a cat carrying 235.65 grams of marijuana and 67.76g of heroin. The drugs have since been confiscated, and the animal was put into the care of the National Animal Health Service.
How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does the Supreme Court's immunity decision mean for Trump and the future of presidential power?
Well, for Trump, the first thing it means is that you're not going to be hearing about on the case of his involvement in January 6th. All of that gets punted until after the election earliest, assuming Biden wins and more likely these days, Trump. The case is kind of a dead letter. More broadly for presidential power. We're talking about immunity for all official acts that are engaged in during the course of a person's presidency. Now, in dissent, Justice Sotomayor, who's pretty far left on the court, has said that this doesn't prevent a president from engaging in treasonous acts and makes the president a king. Most jurists don't accept that, but it certainly does lead to huge questions about what is and what is not an official act. And of course, presidents would be inclined to argue that very broadly to be able to avoid the potential at any cases against them. So this is a pretty significant, not necessary momentous, but certainly very significant decision by the court.
With the far-right surging in the French elections, what would a caretaker government in France mean for Europe?
Well, it is more likely that we see a caretaker government than we see a far-right majority. And the efforts by President Macron and the left to ensure that they are not running against each other in the second round, triangular three-person elections make it more likely that you have a hung parliament. Then you have the far right in a cohabitation of this very unusual situation where the prime minister is opposition to the president. But what's going to happen is that you have a very, very weak French government and that almost nothing can pass in the next 12 months until another election would occur. It certainly makes Le Pen stronger. It makes it more likely that the far right is eventually able to defeat a Macron successor from the center in 2027.
And it also makes it more likely that the French budget is out of whack with the EU. They're not able to pass anything that looks like a balanced budget, that more parliamentary approvals for things like, additional support for Ukraine or training troops on the ground, would have a hard time getting through the French parliament if it requires such a vote. So it's a real challenge for the EU. It's a challenge for France.
Does the West have any concerns with Modi's upcoming visit to Russia?
Not really. The West relationship with Prime Minister Modi is very strong. Modi is increasingly decoupling the defense relationship between India and Russia. They buy a lot from Russia. No Indian technology goes to Russia the way that it does from China, for example. So you don't have that dual use problem. And India buys an awful lot of oil from Russia, at a discount. But that is in line with American and the West's policies, because they don't want a global recession. Modi and Putin, in principle, are supposed to visit each other every year. That hasn't happened. And so this is sort of getting that relationship in that regard on track. But I think there's not a lot strategically that the West is worried about near term here.
A group of people thought to be migrants arrive in Dungeness, Kent, after being rescued in the Channel by the RNLI following following a small boat incident.
Hard Numbers: UK vote may scrap Rwanda plan, Orban visits Ukraine, India mulls marital rape, Bannon reports for prison, Beryl turns deadly, Fuji for a price
320 million: If, as widely expected, the Labour Party wins Thursday’s national elections in the UK and scraps the outgoing government’s controversial plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the British government will have spent more than £320 million that can’t be recovered. Labour has pledged instead to spend state funds to build a new Border Security Command that dismantles the people-smuggling gangs that help asylum-seekers cross the English Channel in small boats.
1: Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister and Europe’s most pro-Russian leader, made an unexpected visit to Kyiv for talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This marks Orbán’s first trip to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. The visit coincides with Hungary assuming the rotating EU presidency, which happened despite concerns from other European politicians over Hungary’s frequent clashes with Brussels. Discussions are expected to focus on peace possibilities and bilateral relations between Hungary and Ukraine.
36: India’s supreme court has promised to rule later this month on whether India’s much-anticipated new penal code will make it acrime for a man to rape his wife. For now, India is one of the world’s 36 countries that have not criminalized marital rape.
4: Former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon reported to prison on Monday. He’ll now serve afour-month sentence for contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Bannon, who has called himself a “political prisoner,” remains influential with pro-Trump conservatives.
5: Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5 storm with sustained winds of 165 mph, caused widespread destruction across the southeast Caribbean on Monday, killing at least two people. Beryl is the first Atlantic hurricane of the season.
12: Early Monday, Japan’s park rangers began a crackdown on the surge of visitors hoping to walk up the iconic Mount Fuji. Climbers will now have to pay 2,000 yen (about $12) to hit the trails, and the number of hikers will be limited to 4,000 a day to limit the overcrowding and litter that have drawn more complaints in recent years.
US Supreme Court
SCOTUS throws a bone to Jan. 6 rioters
On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that hampers the Justice Department's ability to charge rioters for taking part in Jan. 6 riot on the grounds that they obstructed an official proceeding (the counting of the electoral college votes). The prosecutors were charging the rioters using a statute that forbids tampering with evidence and was enacted in 2002 in regard to the Enron accounting scandal.
In a 6-3 decision along nonideological lines, the court said that prosecutors must prove that defendants attempted to tamper with or destroy documents or “other things used in the proceeding” for the charge to apply.
Federal prosecutors have charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstructing an official proceeding, as the Capitol attack aimed to upend Congress’s certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. Former President Donald Trump also faces the charge in his federal Jan. 6 case.
Is this a win for Trump?"It's still unclear how this ruling impacts Trump specifically, but it could overturn many of the prosecutions against Jan. 6 defendants who are not Trump,” says Eurasia Group analyst Noah Daponte-Smith. “Even if the ruling does vacate some of the charges against Trump, it doesn't threaten the main thrust of his trial — he still faces two other charges."
The US Supreme Court’s “upside-down” logic in Trump immunity case
2024 is certain to be a historic year for the US Supreme Court: In June, SCOTUS will issue rulings on former president Donald Trump’s immunity claims in charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith involving Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack the legal arguments at the heart of the case and what caught SCOTUS experts off-guard during oral arguments.
Like in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ultimately handed the election win to George W. Bush, Court watchers had expected the justices to issue a narrow ruling in the Trump case. But during arguments, the conservative justices asked questions that seemed more interested in raising hypotheticals about whether limiting the scope of immunity might restrict a president’s power too much. With Trump again on the ballot in 2024, the stakes could not be higher. Will the justices make a limited ruling or wade into the politics of the US presidential election with, as Justice Gorsuch put it, “a ruling for the ages”?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The case against Trump's big lie ›
- Trump's Jan. 6 trial could now hurt his re-election bid ›
- Is Trump immune? SCOTUS dives into uncharted waters ›
- Trump's immunity claim: US democracy in crisis ›
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power - GZERO Media ›
Former President Donald Trump walks out of the courtroom following the first day of jury selection at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, NY on Monday, April 15, 2024.
Supreme Court considers laws that could affect Jan. 6 charges
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could eliminate some of the federal charges Donald Trump is facing in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election and the prosections of the hundreds of rioters involved in the Jan. 6 attack. This comes just a day after jury selection began in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, with dozens of potential jurors being excused after they told the judge they could not be impartial.
The high court judges will consider whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the energy giant Enron’s collapse, can be used against Joseph W. Fischer, a former police officer who participated in the Capitol assault.
The law makes it a crime to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. It was enacted to prohibit the destruction of evidence, but in this case, it is being argued that by entering the Capitol, rioters like Fischer obstructed the counting of electoral ballots.
The law is involved in two of the federal charges against Trump in his election subversion case. If the Supreme Court rules that it does not apply to Fischer, Trump is almost certain to argue it does not apply to his conduct either.
Former President Donald Trump attends a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, on Dec. 19, 2023.
Colorado's Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from state primary ballot
The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies former President Donald Trump from running in 2024 after determining that he played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol. The game-changing decision — which will inevitably be taken to the Supreme Court — mandates that Colorado’s secretary of state exclude Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot.
The court's decision is the first to find that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Trump, and it could set a precedent for other states to pursue similar actions. So far, 14th Amendment cases in states like Michigan and Minnesota have failed to remove Trump’s name from any state ballot.
The ruling is stalled until Jan. 4, 2024, to allow time for Trump to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Trump's campaign promptly vowed to appeal the ruling to the nation's highest court. The primary season also begins in January, and if Trump becomes the nominee, the Supreme Court will need to rule quickly to avoid the unprecedented possibility of statewide disenfranchisement if the Republican presidential candidate is absent from an entire state’s ballot.
If the Supreme Court affirms this ruling, Trump could be disqualified from running in all states, drastically altering the landscape of the 2024 election. Many in the Republican Party will view the decision as an infringement on their right to vote for their candidate of choice while reinforcing their belief that Trump is the victim of a witch hunt. While this is unlikely to hurt Trump’s position as the Republican front-runner, a fierce legal battle lies ahead.
Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look
US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire for failing to disclose taking luxury trips paid for by a billionaire Republican donor. How big of a problem is this for him, SCOTUS, and the judiciary?
Preet Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, says that Thomas probably didn't violate any actual rule related to conflicts of interest. But the optics are bad — especially coming on the heels of his wife's involvement with the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. "At a time when confidence and trust in the integrity of the court is low, it's not a great thing to do," Bhararara tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
To be sure, there's no evidence that the gifts influenced how Thomas ruled on cases. After all, the ex-prosecutor says he's a "dyed-in-the-wool conservative."
Still, Preet Bharara thinks he should have disclosed the gifts. If he didn't, it's likely because Thomas knew how bad it would look.