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 }}
Collage of Ian Bremmer, Putin, and Trump.
Vance 2028, AI doomsday, Russia after Putin, and more: Your questions, answered
Moose and I are trading Manhattan’s muggy sidewalks for Nantucket sand, but first, one more mailbag. Since this is the last newsletter you’ll get from me until after Labor Day, we’ve got an extra-long edition to tide you over. Thanks to those who sent in so many smart and snarky questions, to all of you for reading, and I’ll see you fully energized in September.
What recourse does the Supreme Court have against a president who doesn't follow the rule of law?
Ultimately, the Court’s leverage lies with its own legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. President Donald Trump has thus far respected its rulings because outright defiance would risk a backlash that could damage his political standing. That said, the Court has also been selective about the cases it’s taken, partly to avoid confrontations with the executive it might struggle to enforce that would expose the limits of its power. The institution is being challenged; even if for now its authority is holding. It’s a mistake to assume that will necessarily last forever.
The Trump administration is incredibly pro-Israel, both in terms of sending weapons to Israel for offensive operations throughout the Middle East as well as arresting pro-Palestinian protesters on US college campuses (and also going after the colleges themselves). How does one reconcile this position with the administration's support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and other far-right parties in Europe and elsewhere that hold very strong antisemitic views?
There’s no contradiction: pro-Israel policy, anti-Palestine campus crackdowns, and support for far-right parties all serve the same worldview – nationalist, populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration – rather than any coherent, principled stance against antisemitism. The Trump administration’s support for the AfD, France’s National Rally, and other European ultranationalists – all of which praise Israel as a model “ethnostate” despite their persistent antisemitism – was driven less by President Trump himself than by Elon Musk (who’s now out) and Vice President JD Vance (who has now stepped back from that policy push). Trump personally likes leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, but that’s less about shared ideology than the fact that Trump likes people who profess their love for him.
The question is not why Trump is so strongly pro-Israel, but rather, why the United States is. After all, Trump may be even more pro-Israel than Joe Biden, but compared to the rest of the world, both presidents are outliers in terms of their support for the Jewish state. Some of that comes down to the depth of intelligence-sharing and military coordination between the two countries. Some is about genuinely shared geostrategic interests and common enemies in the region. Some is about the strength of the political lobby in the US. And some used to be about Israel’s status as the only strong democracy in the Middle East (Gaza and the West Bank notwithstanding), though that’s now less true of Israel and less important to American leaders.
With the broken promises of "no new wars," increased budget deficits, and now the swirling conspiracies around the Epstein files, can Trump hold together a cohesive base to maintain the very slim majorities they hold in Congress come midterms?
I would not call “no new wars” a broken promise. True, Trump has failed to end the war in Ukraine (so far at least), but he has clearly tried. He’s had moderate success helping to broker truces in the India-Pakistan, Thailand-Cambodia, and Rwanda-DRC conflicts. He does get a big zero on Gaza, having helped make matters worse. It’s unclear he (unlike Elon, who was not on the ballot) credibly promised to end budget deficits; his base cares less about this than ending the two-tiered economic and justice system – and on that front, they have grounds to be angry both about the tax breaks for the rich in the “big beautiful bill” and the lies and misdirection about Jeffrey Epstein. I suspect that undermines his (very resilient) support with the base somewhat, but it might get washed out by a kept promise that was key to getting him elected in 2024: closing the southern border and deporting illegal aliens. At the end of the day, though, a lot will come down to how the economy is doing by then.
Is it too early to even think about a Vance presidency?
It’s too early, especially given how much has already happened – and how fast things have changed – in the first six months of the Trump-Vance administration. Folks need to pace themselves; this is a marathon, not a sprint. Trump has no incentive to crown a successor and weaken his own power while he’s still center stage. Expect him to keep everyone guessing until the very last minute (and maybe even later).
Global investors are increasingly de-risking from US assets and reducing their US dollar exposure. As the US moves away from the rules-based order, who (China, the EU) or what (gold, oil, cryptocurrencies) can fill the vacuum?
There’s still no alternative to King Dollar. Yes, more investors are trimming their outsized holdings of historically overvalued USD assets and looking for alternatives to hedge against political shock and weaponization risk. In the long term, China’s economic heft and global lead in some of the most important frontier technologies make the yuan a leading contender (yes, despite its demographic collapse). But a true substitute has to offer scale, liquidity, open capital markets, and trustworthy national institutions. Washington’s self-inflicted wounds may erode the greenback’s appeal, but they don’t make the RMB – with its capital controls and legal opacity – any more suitable to be a reserve asset. Nor do they allow Europe’s rule of law, deep markets, and capital openness to make up for the persistent lack of a true fiscal, financial, and political union. Gold and oil remain commodities, not currencies; they can’t grease modern finance. And crypto is still far too volatile (and, in the case of dollar-pegged stablecoins, paradoxically reinforces greenback dominance).
The more realistic future is a messier, more multipolar system where central banks, institutional investors, and corporations still keep most of their dry powder in dollars yet diversify more into euros, yuan, bullion, and digital tokens. Fragmentation means higher transaction costs and less automatic US leverage, but until someone marries China-style scale with Swiss-style trust, the dollar remains first among unequals – just less overwhelmingly so.
If critical minerals are necessary for energy security and warfighting, how can the US diversify supply chains within a credible timeframe?
Trump’s executive order to fast-track permitting and expand financing for mining projects is useful, as is the Pentagon’s direct equity investment in MP Materials. But it’s going to take a lot of money and several years – I’d say no fewer than five – of coordinated and consistent policy support to build out not just production capacity but refining and processing ecosystems, especially for defense-critical heavy rare earths. Putting aside the technical hurdles, fiscal constraints, and permitting bottlenecks, there’s presently no strategy to make Western-led projects commercially viable against a non-market competitor whose dominance not only spans upstream and midstream production but also extends to pricing, logistics, and trading infrastructure, resulting in both direct supply pressure and indirect influence over global pricing.
Is the fight against climate change dead? What will it take for it to return to the political agenda?
No, because clean energy technologies are getting cheaper and being deployed at an unprecedented speed and scale, driven not by woke ideology or government regulation but by scientific breakthroughs and market forces. To be sure, the global transition is not being led by the United States, but it’s also not being particularly held back by it. That deep-red Texas leads the US (and China and India lead the world) in renewable deployment is a case in point: the fight against climate change will be won by economic self-interest and tech ingenuity, not Greta tweets and political diktat.
Do you think the US will ever leave NATO altogether?
Ever? Sure, since it’s easy to see nation-states no longer being the principal geopolitical actors a generation or two from now. But probably not in the coming, say, 5-10 years. Trump may once again threaten to pull out of the alliance (both for domestic politics and to encourage fairer burden-sharing), but even before taking office in January he had already admitted to changing his mind about NATO being obsolete.
What is preventing Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump from insisting that Israel stop impeding the free flow of humanitarian aid (including food) into Gaza?
They don’t consider the Palestinians strategically relevant and/or worthy of concern (also see: Europe). They certainly have more political leeway and, therefore, more leverage to pressure Israel with than the Biden administration did (and than the Europeans). But they just don’t care (not enough and not yet, at least).
Are we ever going to witness the United States of Europe?
If the pandemic, climate change, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and America’s isolationist turn haven’t done the trick, I have a hard time imagining what will. Each crisis nudges the bloc toward more coordination and incremental integration (banking union, joint vaccine procurement, a modest pandemic recovery fund), but the same shocks also fuel populist backlash against ceding another inch of sovereignty. Add the centrifugal pull of NATO for security, national capitals for taxation, and Berlin-Paris bargaining for everything in between, and the path to a true federation keeps receding. That reality means Europe will keep punching below its collective weight – let alone the US and China’s.
Do you think the UK should consider rejoining the EU?
Brexit dented growth and diminished Britain’s bargaining power vis-à-vis great powers, but re-entry is a practical, political, and diplomatic slog with diminishing returns. Having spent years extricating the UK, Europeans are once burned, twice shy; even if they were to reopen the wound, good luck getting Brussels to agree to London’s old rebates and opt-outs. At home, any government would have to sell free movement, loss of sovereignty, and a meaningful budget contribution to voters who were told they’d “taken back control.” Plus, the world has changed since 2016. Relinquishing veto power to 27 other capitals in a G-Zero era where agility and autonomy are key strategic assets risks trading one set of constraints for another. The smarter play is to stitch together flexible partnerships with the EU – from security to green tech – while keeping a free hand on the steering wheel.
If the US steps away from the Ukraine/Russia negotiations, do you think Europeans will step up and take a leading role in defending Ukraine?
They are already taking the lead. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the combined support for Ukraine (financial, military, and humanitarian) from European countries has exceeded US contributions by over $45 billion – and that’s not including the over $110 billion in European aid commitments still to be allocated plus new funding to scale the continent’s own defense industry so the flow keeps growing.
Considering Russia's historical proficiency in winter warfare and its ability to exhaust enemy resources ahead of spring offensives, why have they been unable to decisively overwhelm Ukrainian forces during the past several winters of the ongoing conflict?
Endemic corruption sapping resources and logistics, overconfident and incompetent military leaders squandering Russian materiel and manpower superiority, and poorly led conscripts with low morale, fighting against a more motivated and savvy Ukrainian force bolstered by strong Western support and impressive homegrown tech capabilities.
Is there hope for Russia after Vladimir Putin?
The analyst in me doesn’t expect a dramatic shift at the Kremlin if Vladimir Vladimirovich were to suddenly croak tomorrow. His successor is far less likely to be a liberalizing democrat than another authoritarian, strongly anti-Western nationalist who’d behave even more risk-aversely than Putin, needing the continuous support of the Russian military, intelligence, and security establishment – the siloviki – to stay in power.
Do you think "traditional" news providers such as the FT, NYT, etc. will become stronger as people look for more credible sources of information in the age of increasing disinformation on social media? Or is this wishful thinking?
I’m skeptical that traditional media as a whole can become stronger in an era of hyper-polarized audiences, an ever-more-fragmented information ecosystem, declining ad revenue, and business models that depend on paywalls. Disinformation thrives not because people actively seek out lies, but because they consume news the way they consume everything else online: passively, emotionally, algorithmically, and in soundbites. The key challenge isn’t trust, it’s attention. The NYT and the FT can’t win a game that’s optimized for engagement without compromising the very accuracy and credibility that make them valuable. Though I do think select sources that are trusted and have authentic voices will become increasingly essential to a narrow slice of the public willing to pay for the “credibility premium” (whether in money or attention). I hope that’s what GZERO Media is for most of you.
What are we missing on the horizon that we should pay more attention to behind all the current dust?
Artificial intelligence transforming our economies, societies, global security, and geopolitics in a matter of years. Compared to the magnitude and speed of change we’re used to, we’re in for a wild ride.
Do you have a p(doom) number for AI? What's your take on the value of making p(doom) predictions?
My distribution of possible AI outcomes currently looks like a barbell. I think either we blow ourselves up in the next 10-20 years or we end up with a radically better quality of life, extremely high economic growth and scientific progress, and even much longer lifespans. But I can’t tell yet which tail scenario is more likely, making my p(doom) – the probability of existentially catastrophic outcomes as a result of AI – incredibly uncertain. I need to see more to update decisively one way or the other. As the technology advances, these estimates will become increasingly important.
Have you noticed any growing suspicion abroad due to your nationality? Are you being threatened or intimidated by anyone here at home because of your opinions?
I’ve noticed a rise in anti-American sentiment more generally, on the back of the belief that the United States is no longer as reliable a partner and ally (fact-check: true). I think some people do presume that as an American you must hold a certain worldview (e.g., Russia and China always bad, US always good, etc. etc.), which is as ridiculous and offensive as thinking you would do that as a white or black person. But I have thankfully never been threatened or intimidated, neither at home nor abroad, other than on social media – which is a feature, not a bug, of these platforms.
Are you giving any thought to moving to a different country, and if so, where would you consider going?
Zero. I love New York City. And unlike mayoral candidate and former governor Andrew Cuomo, I can’t imagine leaving under any circumstances.
A US roadtrip.
Vacation warnings & 1776 time travel
The long weekend is upon us, and you’re probably traveling to see family or friends in that last escape from work before summer fades away like a political promise to balance the budget. It never lasts. But plans for some Canadians got complicated this week after Trudeau’s government issued a travel warning to the LGBT community to be careful visiting US states that have enacted restrictive new laws and policies.
This isn’t Afghanistan or Russia, where you might normally expect these warnings, but this is the USA. Is this just another log on the “woke,” virtue-signaling bonfire of the sanities that is torching the political landscape?
Well, the data is compelling. The ACLU is currently tracking more than 495 anti-LGBTQ bills in different US states that restrict accommodation in washrooms, educational curriculums, and healthcare access, and weaken non-discrimination laws. In other words, it’s a real thing, but does it make a US visit dangerous?
Back in May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report on the rise of violence against the LGBTQ community, saying “These issues include actions linked to drag-themed events, gender-affirming care, and LGBTQIA+ curricula in schools." Countries like Canada, which have already warned about things like mass shootings, are clearly taking notice of this as well.
It's stylish to dismiss all this as merely a “culture war,” as if the Jello-ey bloviations of pundits trying to build a social media profile are just low-rent cultural entertainment for the politically craven. But the emphasis is shifting from the “culture” part toward the “war” part, where open attacks on the human rights of citizens are cast in the flag-waving, revolutionary rhetoric of battle.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the sudden rise of the tech-bro Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy casts his entire campaign as a “1776 moment” of revolution against the Woke Straw Man. (I am so tempted to write “Straw Person” just to see the social media brushfire, but we have had enough summer fires, haven’t we?) Ramaswamy told the House Anti-Woke Caucus that to defeat the woke agenda there needs to be “a new kind of American Revolution in our country, reviving the ideals of 1776.” Fellow candidate Ron DeSantis is on the same train, and his war with Disney — yes, taking on Mickey Mouse is frontline political work — was meant to affirm his anti-woke bona fides.
1776 was a revolutionary and foundational moment, but it’s not some Paradise Lost that needs to be reclaimed. It was merely the starter pistol for a historic period of transformative change. After all, it took hundreds of years, a bloody civil war, constitutional amendments, and countless political movements to end slavery and extend full rights — including the vote — to women and multiple minority groups. Not a lot of folks would want to live in 1776 America, where the idealism about freedom (written by a whole bunch of dudes who owned slaves) and the reality of it only had a passing relationship. The whole point of the 1776 Big Bang was to accelerate more freedoms for individuals, not less. That makes it hard to jibe with the campaign rhetoric of restrictions today.
It is an issue boiling up in Canada as well. In New Brunswick, Premier Blaine Higgs is embroiled in a battle over gender self-identification in schools and the balance between parental and kids rights, a topic picked up nationally by Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who believes these are parenting issues, not government ones. Is this why the Canadian government suddenly made the travel warning announcement? Trudeau is fading in current polls while Poilievre is surging, and this is a convenient wedge.
Or is this another part of the same culture war, only this time trying to animate the left, not the right? “It seems like too much of a coincidence for the Canadian government suddenly to make this announcement and there be no connection to domestic politics,” Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group, told me.
Ok, it’s the long weekend, and you might be annoyed that it’s so political. Where to go to spend your tourism dollars, who to visit, what’s the risk … it’s enough to wreck a good vacation. But remember, this weekend started as a political battleground. Labor Day in the US became a national holiday in 1894 after workers in places like Chicago (in the famous Haymarket riot of 1886) fought to get fair wages, better working conditions, and an eight-hour workday. It worked.
It’s worth noting that your weekend of rest came 118 years after 1776. Ready to give that back too? Maybe this long weekend is actually the best time to get political.
This column by GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon was featured in GZERO North on Aug. 31, 2023. Subscribe today.